What a coincidence! I dug out my old playstation two days ago and started playing Silent Hill again.

I AM A PC GAMER (also a PC game developer). The problem with making games for PC is the fact that you can guarantee it will be pirated. As far as I know Gears of War 2 was not released on PC since they would not benefit from it, even though Gears of War was released for PC.

Currently I am playing F.E.A.R. 3 (or F.3.A.R. if you prefer). I have to say I cannot imagine it on console. The graphics are AMAZING with D3D11 and 64-bit on my 1080p at constant 60fps in the dark with 3D headphones. The experience is amazing! YOU NEED A MOUSE FOR FPS GAMES! Console FPS games are an insult.

As far as Duke Nukem goes... Duke Nukem 3D was one of the best games EVER I believe. I was dreading Duke Nukem Forever since I thought it would not do Duke any justice, however they just got bloody lucky. Duke Nukem  Forever was actually a worthy sequel in a similar way to how Half-Life 2 was a great follow-up to Half-Life. BUT... PLEASE, no more Duke! I cannot take the stress of waiting again to see if it worked out.

To answer this weeks question: I immediately thought of Resident Evil (since I am a massive fan of RE and Silent Hill) but then I realized that the problem I have with RE is not the amazing and complex story, but the way they left gaps in the story from the gameplay perspective. What I mean is; why the hell does almost every RE game have multiple endings? For example, what really happended at the mansion? Did it actually blow up and who was actually left behind? The game does not give you that information until a sequal is released or some official source states what really happened.

I guess I would try to get rid of GTA IV since it is a bag of wank! They should have stopped at GTA II and have a small and dedicated fanbase instead of making the 3D versions and attracting all sorts of a**holes.

PS: Why do you keep saying "Critical Mass"!? That is the name of one of the RTS titles I am developing... strange.

Off the top of my head, a game I would get rid of would be Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings.  Now, maybe Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb (the previous Indy title from 2003) wasn't the best of the best, but I found it to be enjoyable.  To come back 6 years later with Staff of Kings over Emperor's Tomb level of quality isn't actually why I would get rid of this game though.

The main reason is it's absolutely insulting that Indiana Jones return to the gaming world of Uncharted and Crystal Dynamics' Tomb Raider and try and compete with the broken game that is Staff of Kings.  Given the Indiana Jones influence on Tomb Raider and Uncharted, I would have expected the next Indy title to bring something to the table that says "Yeah, you had your moment of glory -- now compete with this!" and would at least be a worthy competator.  Maybe 6 years from game to game made me think too greatly of what that game would be though.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Lara Croft and Nathan Drake, and I buy both of their games religiously, but I can't help but feel at certain times in those games that the characters could easily be swapped for good ol' Indy.  I also suppose it's my own fault for having faith in LucasArts in making an Uncharted-killer.  (I have a unsubstantiated feeling Naughty Dog's original Uncharted pitch was a turned down Indiana Jones game...) 

The point though is more than the game that wasn't, but that the game that was was green lit to come out at all.  It was embarassing.  From the HD tech demo of it clearly intended to be on 360 or PS3 to never make the light of day makes one think that someone out there decided that no, it couldn't compete with the competition.  But the continue on with the Wii, DS and PS2 versions of the game that were clunky and cumbersome?  That was a mistake. 

This wasn't some up and coming character trying to break into the 3rd person adventure category.  It was Indiana Jones.  He deserved better.  If he couldn't compete, he just should not have come back at all.  So, I don't mourn for the game that wasn't, I just wish the game that was realized that it wasn't what other games were, and went quietly away to rethink it's life.

Thanks for the welcome :D  I really enjoy watching your podcasts and videos.  

It's giving me a hernia not posting a 45  paragraph rant on how I would delete FF13 from existence...

Starfox Adventures, one of the reasons I bought the little indigo lunch box was for the next adventure in the Lylat System, hell one of the reasons I had a paper route was for this game. The box art looked kind of odd when I picked it up, but there was Fox McCloud and hey on the back there's an Arwing. I pop the mini disc in and grin like a total idiot. The menu is the Great Fox Bridge with Fox McCloud in an arm chair... awesome! I put in my initials and commence the game.

What followed for about 20 minutes was me getting punished for my naivety. You open up with a blue fox girl on a pterodactyl (Which are Pterrifying badum tish) odd I thought to myself but you assume flight controls and attack an airship. This wasn't that odd of a departure I mean to the core it still felt like Starfox, then Yiff-bait got off the dinosaur and proceeded to walk in around a temple (sorry Palace) and solve Zelda like puzzles. Eventually she gets stuck in a crystal.

And I see the second biggest tease in my life "Meanwhile in the lost corner of the Lylat System..." My hope restored dear lord yes a space Arwing battle! In it's epic music and terribly annoying voice acting glory I was sitting in the next gen Starfox game... and then we landed on the dinosaur planet and proceeded to dick around with a runty tricerotops.

This game is pretty well like my reviewers but I hate this game, to the point where I can go from zero to complete child over how much it suuuuuuuuuuucks.

#*Insert Spoony's Betrayal soundbite*

I actually think Starfox Adventures was a great game.  The problem with it is that people were expecting something else.   Giving certain names to games means they have to live up to that.   If it had just been a normal Zelda clone with any given characters and name, people would remember it better.  But then maybe no one would have bought it.  

I feel the same way about The Adventure of Link.  I think it's an alright game.  It was actually the first Zelda game I played and finished.  But it was a bad sequel.  It changed things in a way that didn't make the Zelda franchise better.  It would be alright to erase it from history if there was something better to replace it with.   But there's   not so I rather keep it.

On another thought Simon's Quest can vanish and I could care less.  It's not needed because we had a great sequel for Castlevania on the Nes, Dracula's Curse.  

... Act Raiser 2...

No I totally get why people like that game, but I dunno. SA was certainly not what I expected, that and saving up a meager paper route wage to get a console and SA only to find out you hate it kind of blows. I recognize that my disdain for that game is entirely childish but I was a child when I got it.

It's like anti-Nostalgia.

It is totally understandable that you hate the game.   But the pattern I see is that we don't hate these games because they are bad but because they were not what we expected.    From sequels we usually want more of the same but improved.  Not something altogether different.

Sequels are hard to pull off, thats a fact. Only one of the games I am developing has a series planned with a prequel and at least one sequel. I wish I could provide more information but a lot of the material is not copywrited as of yet.

Remember, the future of a fanchise does not depend on sequels. Look at Mario for example, most games are stand-alone and not actual sequels but it has become (according to wikipedia) the biggest gaming franchise. So perhaps no-one should make any sequels and just tell the story all in one go. Thats the way forward!

growing up my favorite games on the ps1 was the spyro series, to this day the first 3 spyro games are my favorite platformers (other than mario). but with the dawn of new consoles came Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly, the game I wish was never made. this game had more problems than good parts, from glitches to long loading times this game had nothing going for it. the problems in this game have plauged  the series for the past 9 years.

but there is hope... Skylanders  is trying to bring a dying series back to life with new ideas and a fresh look at the game.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (all sequels) - The first NES game is the best Turtles game I played than the sequels are just side- scrolling fighting games and people hate the first game and put it in the Top 10 worst games for the NES because it is not like its sequels.

Zora's Revenge: Star Tropics II - I wouldn't of found this game if I wasn't browsing ROM's (I bought the cart when I found it) and replayed it on the proper hardware/controller and here (HappyVideoGameNerd) shares most of the same issues I had with it. To sum it up here doesn't feel like Star Tropics.

Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble - The first game I felt that I was ripped off on. (Bought it in the days of the SNES lifetime.) I beat the game within a week perfectly without any challenge unlike Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest took awhile to beat it and the first Donkey Kong Country game I just beaten it in the last couple of years due to an unofficial strategy guide I bought (bonus room in a bonus room is not a place I would look for one.)

Super Mario Sunshine - Take the Mario characters out of the game and the game is not a Mario game. The game doesn't feel like a Mario game.

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within - I don't own this game due to seeing the reviews of it on how the music is rock/metal and blood. And since this is the second game in a trilogy I almost want to add this game to it so to have the three of them.

Super Monkey Ball 2 - If you played the first one this is the same except for more mini-game and poorly designed mini-games and that's including the ones that were from the first one.

And now Final Fantasy ... I do not feel like doing a massive amount of typing right now so let me just say that the only good Final Fantasy sequels (when not comparing them to the first game and only on their own) V and IX are the good ones (as of right now). But will say VII (it must be a good game since I had the chance to play it from a roommate and put 16 hours into it) the fan base oh god the fan base, they are the reason I hate Final Fantasy VII.

(EDIT: Added to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Prince of Persia: Warrior Within.)

(EDIT: Fixed spelling of 'some it up' to 'sum it up'.)

3 things come to mind.

1. Twisted Metal 3+4: Twisted Metal 1+2 were fun, zany games with adictive car combat gameplay and over-the-top characters and were two of the main reasons I played on the Playstation as much as I did.  Then the developer, SingleTrac and director, David Jaffe were forced to leave on some contract dispute and the franchise was handed over to in-house studio 989 Studios. They made Twisted Metals 3+4. Dont get me wrong, they were good games in their own right, they just weren't good TWISTED METAL games. It felt like the developer didn't really get what the series was about. The games ended-up being uninspired, cartoony, and over all, not intune with the rest of the series' style, or fun. Then the guys from SingleTrac (Incognito Studios now) and David Jaffe came back for Twisted Metal Black, and brought the franchise back to its original feel, although a little darker.

2. Metal Gear Solid 4: I have been a long time Metal Gear fan, but 4 was when I kind of got sick of the stuff that had been going on with the series for a while. The rediculously long cutscenes, the over complicated story, the overall weirdness.  This is when it became to much for me and i just kind of left. A shame since I kind of like th newer ones.

3. Mega Man: Now all of the games in the original Mega Man series are great but I just kind of wish that there hadn't been as many of them. Capcom churned out a game every 2 years up until 7 and then they just focused on the spin-offs. I just think if they had made only, say, 4 Mega Man games on the NES, the series would be a lot more relevent in gaming today. Of course there was Mega Man 9 that sort of brought it back, but that kind of felt like a one time thing, despite MM10 trying to do it again.

I am actually glad e3 is over, but when you said we'd be thinking about gaming some more I nearly passed out, but it is just about crappy sequels! YAY! *HUG* Although sequels are a strange thing. At the end of a game I am either glad I accomplished my mission to complete the game, or very very sad that it is over. I can attribute the very very sad part to games like Half-Life 2 Episode 2 or Portal (Valve is my favorite gaming developer, they got me into PC gaming all by themselves) and I would want a sequel to continue to fun. This happened with Portal and I am very glad to have Portal 2, but now I need more. As for Episode 2, I know more is on the way (Sure it'll be a while, as long as it is fun, oh and as long as if I don't die before then) Although there are some games that afterwards I am just sick of playing it and I do not want any more. Luckily sequels are normally released a few years after the original so I have plenty of time for it to become fresh again. The biggest problems with sequels are that they are either too unlike the previous (Zelda 2) or they are too similar (Bioshock 2) Both of those games I mentioned I love. Zelda 2 is a different game than Zelda 1, so I understand why it may be the least liked of all the Zelda games, but it is a very good game, side scrolling adventure gamers will say it is their favorite Zelda game, even if they hate all non sidescrolling games or something. Bioshock is exactly like the first game, most people look down on it because it did very little new, it is more like they just got a level editor and created new levels and threw you in them. Yes I know that is not true there are plenty of things that change up the game, like being able to use Plasma and Guns at once! Though I never found that useful, in the original if you hold a gun and you press the plasma fire button you immediatly switch and shoot it, sure there is a slight delay and you can't fire at the same time, well who gives a shit? Erm... anyway I liked it, maybe I didn't love it, but the same could be said for me about the first game. People who played the first and wanted more got what they wanted, the pricks who got tired of the first game and bought the second anyway are very dumb, but I belive we can all look forward to Bioshock Infinite.

There are some sequels that continue the story of the previous, like the Mass Effect games. I have only played part of the way through the first Mass Effect, but I assume it ends with "YOU KILLED THE BAD GUY AND SAVED THE UNIVERSE, EVERYONE LOVES YOU!!!" and the second begins with "OH SHIT, NEVER MIND" These can either be good or bad. I assume Mass Effect does it better because apperantly everyone can't wait for Mass Effect 3 which probably begins with "Ha ha, we tricked you again!" Some games like the original Halo trilogy bring it to a horrible level. With the first Halo being a game some people might like before release, then exploding with so many people loving it, it had a self-contained story. Then they made a second one and knew everyone would love it (Which we did) and knew they would be making a third one, why not connect the stories? So Halo 2 ends with the 'final battle' as you fly down to some planet or soemthing to fight some more, although it has been a while since I've played so I don't really remember how it goes. Then CLIFF HANGER, want to know what happens? Buy an Xbox 360! Some games pull off story in video games very well, like Uncharted, none of these games have anything to do with eachother, other than having the same characters. I haven't played the games in a while (Plan to replay them soon for the upcomign Uncharted 3!) but I'm pretty sure there are zero references to the first game in the second except for the same characters running into each other, or maybe I just missed it.

To sum it all up (Yes Male White Mage, it is sum not some... wow that sounded like an ass thing to say, lol, fix your spelling!) sequels have 2 important factors, Gameplay/Style and Story. Getting good gameplay/style means to have it be similar enough to be considered the in the same series even if they didn't share title, characters, or locations. Having a good story means to not ruin one game by having another, either keep them all self-contained or don't tell us the last game was a lie until we play the next one, so we don't feel screwed for not having the next game.

Edit: Another problem with sequels in the gameplay sence is the player. If the game is very different and the player complains it only shares characters, that is OKAY. It is something original, I though last week we were all complaining about unorginality but now people are complaining about Super Mario Sunshine, Zelda 2, and Twisted Metal 3/4 not being worty of their other games. Sure not being worty of the other games is a pretty big deal and games like that should be looked down on, but atleast try to look into if it is a quality game or not, trust me I'm 100% sure someone enjoyed Zelda 2/Super Mario Sunshine (I can gurantee that because I did, though I have not played any Twisted Metal games, whoops) when looking at a gameplay for quality try to forget that the characters are there, pretend they are new people, give them new names if you like. Maybe skip pointless cutscenes, though be careful because you might miss out on what to do next.

It's almost like you noticed I didn't even post last week Commodore. I heard the wringer and I just bit my lip, took in a breath and decided. Nope, not this week.

I have to say, when you first started talking about this weeks wringer I nearly had the same reaction, and I could go on (and on, and on, an.....) about sequels. The problem is, as Ninto points out, they goes soo many ways, So I'm going to talk about some different examples first.

First there's the 'Chain Sequel'. The first couple of sequels are alright but it ends up getting progressively worse. It's like they HAVE to make changes and tweaks to it, often when they aren't needed, some good, some bad. but it just keeps happening until the original becomes lost.  This happens until either someone finally realizes it and they end up going back to a more familiar format, or until they just run the title into the ground. MK is a perfect example of this with the newest game taking a step back and returning to a more familiar format. Some other examples are MegaMan (7-8, then the return to older with 9-10),and Wizardry. Examples of the latter are games like the Final Fantasy and Resident Evil.

Secondly we have the 'We want more! sequel'. These games are typically (though not always) on a very short release cycle and while some things do change, often it just feels like more of the same: Halo, BioShock, MassEffect. While these kind typically aren't 'Bad' they can become tiresome quickly.

Then we have what I consider to often be the best kind of sequel. the 'Evolution Sequel'. With these you wait a good amount of time for the sequel, but it's a great balance of brining a lot of new to the table, without alienating old fans. Blizzard Entertainment are the Guru's of this style which include games like Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, and System Shock

Finaly you have what Duke Nukem Forever is. I call it the  'is this a sequel or a re-launch? sequel'. Games that have gone so long without a previous title it leaves you wondering. Often in these cases, the old is pretty much out in favour of the new. Typically these ones end up nearly completely alienating the old fans, in favour of trying to find new ones. Duke Nukem Forever largely plays like many typical modern FPS and has things like Regenerating health, and limited weapon carrying capacity (only 2 weapons). As a general rule of thumb.. if it's been a decade or more, you're getting one of these: Duke Nukem (3D - Forever: 14 years), Fallout (2-3: 12 years), X-Com (Enforcer - (new one): 11 years). This can often be construed as a gray zone though for where one person will say sequel, another could say 'Spin off'. General rule of thumb I go by: Follow the numbers.

When you look at it this way, I almost would have rather seen more bad sequels if it meant waiting for a good game. Maybe then games like xcom, and Fallout, would still be turn based tactical games rather than FPS's ~grumble~ Kettleman, I'm stealing this:

#*Insert Spoony's Betrayal soundbite*

As to address the actual question of this weeks wringer though. When I think about it, the first ones which come to mind aren't just sequels, but have all been the 'Last in the line to date'

Parasite Eve 2
Masters of Orion 3
Fallout 3 (yeah I'm bitter because I LIKE my almost extinct genre of turn based strategy)

So removing them really would almost be as bad as having them. And as odd as this seems; I think I'd rather have left these games feeling disappointed in where the series had gone, then to have a great game that didn't continue on to do more.

So if I were to leave these three games alone, and still had to pluck a sequel out from existence... I'm going to either say it's one of these 3:

Civ 3 (I thought 2 was the superior game)
Xcom Enforcer -0r- Xcom Interceptor (the begging of the end, taking the game in a completely different direction)
Castlevania 2: Simons Quest. (it just wasn't as fun as the others.)

Escape from Monkey Island comes to mind, the fourth entry in the Monkey Island series. The new, partially 3D graphics were alright, and the music was quite good, but everything else was subpar.  It inherited a clumsy control scheme from Grim Fandango (an otherwise good game, for the most part) , featured some pretty uncompelling storytelling, created some significant continuity problems, and, well, just wasn't that funny. People who played that game first before the rest of the series seem to enjoy it, and I'm happy for them, I guess. But my expectations for the Monkey Island brand are too high to recommend that game that to anyone. I could have done without it... but I can't bring myself to wish it didn't exist, no matter what damage it could have done to the series. Maybe it's because Escape wasn't really, really bad, or maybe it's because others enjoyed it, and I wouldn't want to deny them that. But I'm inclined to think it's because some value can be found in even bad experiences. It helped me appreciate the newest Monkey Island game more, if nothing else.

I'm not sure I've ever played a game I absolutely did  not want to exist. But then, I usually buy games on discount or used. I paid $50 for Myst V (a mediocre and rushed game), and was disappointed. Had I paid my usual $10, I wouldn't have experienced as much regret during play. Buying a genuinely bad game at full price would make angry... at myself, at least. And then there's time. I've never played a Final Fantasy game (I know, the shame!), but if I invested 50+ hours of my life getting to the end of one of the games, continually hoping to replicate a previous pleasant experience with the series, only to be hit with one bad design decision after another.... well, what I'm saying is I understand why folks have such strong feelings as they do. 

I totally know how you feel about booting up your PSx, it's how I feel when I hear this. The chime there... it's like I'm home. Relaxed, totally immersed.

As for this weeks wringer... SO. MANY. ANSWERS. >,>

but before I have to say I'm with Aestolia I MISS TURN BASED GAMES. please make more game people.

As a Long time Sega fan there's a looong list of Sonic games that come to mind. But I would have to pick SONIC 2006 and Sonic Unleashed.  In my humble opinion, a key to making these older franchises work, is to not change too many things, but instead have things evolve and grow. I know that sounds weird, but when they just switch or change something, it doesn't fit and inhibits the experience. Recent Sonic games are proof.

also, Silent Hill: Homecoming. It felt over tweaked and not nearly as stand out/unique that 1-4 were. those games have unique "feels" and Homecoming feels like a failed patchwork quilt of borrowed themes and mechanics, sown together with wrong tweaks and poor change.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go back to playing a GOOD sequel, Alice: Madness Returns.

I've played a fewof the more hated sequels, like Mega Man 10, or Metroid Prime Hunters, but I honestly enjoyed them.

Now, from all acounts, there are some games that SHOULD NOT EXIST. What I've heard is that Sonic '06 and every madden ever are more or less worthless.

It may be a result of my studious research habits, but I've yet to buy a sequel that I hated. It may also be that most sequels are at least decent. Super Mario Sunshine, for example. I enjoyed it sure, but not nearly as much as Galaxy 1 and 2.

In general, I think sequels are fine, IF and ONLY IF the dev isn't afraid to innovate. Making a sequel is no exuse to put your feet up and relax.

But as long as we keep that in mind, we should be fine.

In short: Things are pretty okay!

@mikeke352: You like turn based games? Try DEADLOCK II for PC!!! Best turn based game EVER!

Google it everyone... NOW!

Fade to Black (The Sequel to Flashback)

Ugh... This was the worst game ever! The original Flashback is a 16bit gem  that I never tire of playing, however the sequel was a horrendous abomination that was released for the Playstation and PC.

Now if it had been delayed like DN: Forever, we might have gotten a game that retained the great story of the original and had mechnics similar to the Uncharted games. That would have been excellent and I would have really enjoyed playing it.

I agree with The White Male Mage that TMNT 1 is one of the best games ever, but I don't think it's fair to pan the 2nd NES game, as it was a port of the arcade game which I think came out before TMNT 1 (In arcades at least.)

It was a qurter eating beat em up, so... well I guess that works better for an arcade game  than as a console game.

Real quick, I want to make a comment on sheefo's comment which caught my attention.

 YOU NEED A MOUSE FOR FPS GAMES! Console FPS games are an insult.

This is your oppinion. You are entitled to it. You admit to being a PC gamer and therefore by default would hold preference for a mouse and keyboard over a controller. I understand why, but that doesn't mean that it's best for everybody. I, for example, am a console gamer. Always have been, always will be. I prefer a controller, specifically the PlayStation variety because I prefer it's layout, size, and shape. Another example of this being personal preference comes with fighting games and using arcade sticks. A good friend of mine prefers them, I can barely use them.

When my adrenaline gets going, I start getting twitchy when using a mouse and end up shooting everything except for the guy killing me. My accuracy is much better with the analog sticks. Different strokes for different fokes and all that stuff. When you bash consoles like that, you are essentially bashing all console gamers. That may not have been your intent, but obviously it can be taken that way since that's how I read it.

OK, that was supposed to be my two cents but I ended up tossing a quarter. Moving on.

Sequels that shouldn't have happened: FFX-2 and FFXIII-2 are first in my mind. If you want to consider each Final Fantasy as a sequel even though they happen in separate worlds, then add FF11, 12, 13, 14, and Tactics Advanced to that list. The MegaMan X series has too many sequels, though I haven't yet pinpointed where they should have stopped. Let's just say that the first was my favorite of the series as far as I've played. The Prototype sequel doesn't look like much to me. I loved the original, but this sequel looks like the exact same story rather than a valid continuation.

One thing that I think should definetally be talked about when bringing up sequels is to bring up remakes and reboots as well. Primary offender for me is what they're trying to do with Dante in the DMC reboot. Screw that emo garbage, give me back my stylish, wise-cracking half demon. DMC4 left a lot of questions for me and I can see some really interesting plot possibilities for a sequel. They should have gone the sequel route instead. I could rage about this particular reboot all day.

Another game that comes to mind is Final Fight: Streetwise. This is kind of both a sequel and reboot, and failed in both respects. They screwed up so much in this that I'm not even sure what to talk about with it. It just shouldn't have happened, plain and simple.

Street Fighter EX, or whatever it was called, was crap. As was Mortal Kombat Armageddon and vs DC. I've only played the demo of the new MK, so I'm reserving judgement on that for now.

There are just so many sequels and reboots that straight up molest and murder the originals to the extent that it damages the fond memories of the good titles in the series. I can forgive a company making a bad game, they can't all be winners, but when you do so as part of a series you're damaging the everything that made the previous entries so good.

Jasonmarvel, I was actually going to say the same thing to MWM in my big post about sequels. However, for whatever reason Konami decided that this would be a sequel when they officially titled the game: 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game' 

If it's turtles 2 it is indeed a sequel and not a spinoff. this is furthered with 3 (the manhattan project). Had they just called it TMNT: The arcade game, I would agree completely, sadly Konami did not.

First Off!

Hello everyone, I've been watching the weekly wringer for a few weeks, just like to say... enjoyable!

Just thought I'd throw some input your way and see what sticks or not...

Playing the Old----> I can't get enough when someone tell me they still play there old systems, I still play my NES, SNES, GENS, etc. It just goes to show you how we as gamers take the time to revisit some of the "much needed love category" when you got new options like TF2 Free to Play dropping (sorry no hats!).

I find turn based strategy games to be the taste of the week, I found my self playing Disciples II till 7am and the only reason I stopped playing was there was light coming into my room. I also started playing Civilization V witch just about sucked all my free time the other day. One more turn.... damn it!

Sucky Sequels -----> Bioshock2 was a huge disappointment for me, it just didn't live up to the hype monster they portrayed as. To me it was Bioshock1.5 because the story just didn't deliver and if I am going to spend 60$ on a sequel that going transcend it predecessor liked they calmed. It better blow my my mind and do my taxes (at the same time!). Although I should of seen the blood in the water when there was with no Ken Levine on broad, rapture should just stay in the bottom of it mediocrity pit of hell for all I care... and I want my 60$ back to!

Speaking TO the Gamer -----> I was really touch on how the Commodore talked about buying into a gaming experience, I couldn't agree more whit the statement he pointed out. You want invest in your world weather you blowing up cities with your mind, or find the sword of kings on the first encounter. It's all about walking away from a game saying "I can't wait to play that again!" cheer on that! (ps ---> I could be wrong!)

Did a lookup on release dates for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (NES) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game (Arcade version) and both were released close together which probably means that both games where being developed at the same time.

When I look more into my thoughts I am looking at what sequels I've played and hated, and I can't find any besides one of the top of my head. Sure there are sequels I don't like, Pikmin 2 comes to mind (Lack of time made the game too easy) and so does Wario Land 4 (Wario Land 1 was a platformer and Wario Land 2 and 3 were more about explortion, then Wario Land 4 went back to platformer, but I prefer more retro styled platformers) but not many I hate besides Dead Rising 2, and I don't even know why. This is another point I would like to add, some people hate sequels for no reason, and I am guilty of it. Sure some can point to specific things but many I know just hate it and don't know why. I loved the original Dead Rising, even its archaic feel, I loved it before I became a retro gamer, then Dead Rising 2 just wasn't as fun. I didn't find myself enjoying myself and I have no idea why. My friend swears it is because I miss Frank, So I bought the DLC Case West that added Frank and Chuck coop, and I still didn't like it.

As I am typing I realize another sequel I don't like. Left 4 Dead 2. I'm not one of those people who boycotted the game because it was released 1 year after the original (They made a point to release on the same day, I'm sure Valve found it funny) now I love Valve, I could play all of their games and have fun! Even Ricochet, which most people hate (If you don't know what that is google it if you care) I just don't like Left 4 Dead 2 as much as Left 4 Dead 1. It isn't the character thing again either, while I prefer the original 4 characters, I still enjoy Ellis and Nick in L4D2 (Coach and Rochelle are always the AI when me and my brother used to play the 360 version) and when they added the new campaign with the original 4 I still prefer it on the original. I don't know why, but I know more than Dead Rising 2. I don't like the atmosphere, L4D was scary (Atleast the first time) L4D2 is bright and just not a very fun world to play in. I also don't like the new infected, sure they were all made to stop the cheap tactics of versus mode, but I just don't enjoy them. I love to pounce as a hunter, to grab someone as a smoker, and I LOVE jumping out and suprising everyon as a boomer. I don't like being a spitter, one spit and you run away, hide, recharge, repeat. Charger is just annoying, sure the first few times are fun when you grab that person who used to be far away from you, but it is too easy to avoid. Jockey is kind of fun, I gotta admit though. I'd only play L4D2 on PC if a friend is playing and wants to play with me. Though I don't own L4D2 on PC, I do have the 360 version (L4D1 is on PC and a broken disc on 360) Erm I just walked my dogs mid-writing so I don't remember if I was going anywhere with this?

Something I thought of while walking my dogs are sequels that are a different game entirely. These games are often hated by people who liked the old games, and loved by some who prefer the new direction and don't even know of the old. I'm mostly thinking of Fallout, Fallout 3 dosen't have anything to do with Fallout 1 & 2 except for the same story. Vaults and stuff. I haven't played any of the Fallout games, but I know they are not the same thing. The same could be said for Mario 2, it isn't much of a Mario game, well it isn't at all, just has Mario sprites, really. But many people might like Mario 2 more than Mario 1 because of the more unique gameplay, picking up enemies and stuff.

I should also say there isn't much thing as a baad sequel, since if someone played the newer game before the old, they might like them all. I played Resident Evil 4 then RE5, before I got into the older games. Now I love all RE games, because I got lucky in the order I played them. If you play a game in the order they were released you will get the best interpretation of which are good and which arn't. Since a sequel is a follow up to a previous game, it only makes sence to base your opinion on the previous game. Sure that may have just sounded hypocritical from my last post, but a bad sequel and a bad game are not the same thing. Resident Evil 4 is a bad sequel, but Resident Evil 4 is a good game. Left 4 Dead 2 is a bad sequel, in my opinion, but I do understand that it is a good game. Probably a better game (I am just now remembering more of Left 4 Dead 2, so I'm gonna put that here :p) Left 4 Dead 2 has more guns and more enemies and more levels and more modes. It is technically the better game. But it dosen't have the same feel as L4D1 does. For anyone who plays L4D2 first you will probably love it. If then play the first your feeling will probably stay to you prefering L4D2. If you play L4D1 first you will also probably love it (L4D series has a good setup) and when you play L4D2 your opinion will vary depending on what you find fun. Erm this is going on to be a little hard to understand so I am going to stop now and might post again later.

OH ONE LAST THING! On the whole mouse vs controller for FPS games, I started as a console gamer I played all my FPS games with a 360 controller or in a few cases PS2 or GCN controller (Though Metroid Prime dosen't play like most FPS games) I started playing PC because I enjoyed the community much more, being able to type made everyone able to communicate without a microphone, and since my voice is very very very annoying (Atleast to me) I like typing. I have noticed the difference between mouse and controller. Controller allows for more precise but slow movements, and is easy to use when under pressure because it is independent from other things unlike a mouse where you hold the mouse to fire. Though a mouse allows more quick, or precise, but is harder to keep still when doing things like shooting. I'd say a mouse is probably better overall, but if you get suprised and don't react well and shake your hands (Like me) you will probably be better off with a controller.

Shinto55,

That's part of my problem with a mouse for FPS games. When I'm in a tight spot, my hand moves too fast and I keep passing over my target. The only way I can land a hit is if I'm using a SAW. Spray and pray at it's finest. I can occasionally do something similar while using a controller, but I'm at least hitting an arm or a leg.

Of course, it doesn't help that I suck at shooters. Auto-aim is my friend.

I have several sequels I would love to delete examples: Megaman X7, Final Fantasy XIII, Perfect Dark Zero,  Sonic (3D games) from 2003-2007. Though there is one game that in my heart is far worse then all these titles in not only sacrilege to their franchise but also disappointed me the most.

Banjo and Kazooie Nuts and Bolts, the Banjo franchise started on the N64 with two amazing titles and rivaled the Brothers Mario in plat forming greatness. When the GameCube came around I was pumped to see what Rare was going to offer us in terms of the Bird and the Bear I was pumped. I had to have seen the Space World trailer hundreds of times. That and with early Cube titles like Star Fox Adventures (the last Rare title for Nintendo) and I was pumped to see how the New Donkey Kong, Perfect Dark and of course Banjo Title would be. Of course Conker came out on the Xbox but one commercial for the Xbox kept teasing me for the return of Banjo.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avtfC2Kh6Ho

I of course  I never picked up an Xbox but if Banjo Threeie was on it I would had needed it but alas it was never meant to be. Till a teaser trailer with the tagline call Banjo is Back surfaced on the internet. I was pumped for this game pumped. The trailer depicts Banjo using Kazooie to pick locks and use here has a chain saw I know cool right. That and it was going to be on 360 which means we would had seen world Bigger and Better than anything we seen on the N64. Topping the Graphics of previous Rare game on the Cube or Xbox like Star Fox Adventures or Conker Live and Reloaded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGVGlVWzzy4

Oh boy was I sorely disappointed by what I had seen next, Banjo driving a vehicle WHAT. At first I was intrigued of course I thought to myself the worlds we explore would be so huge that this gameplay addition would be needed right. I was interested vehicle and traditional plat forming Rare had me hooked on this idea I had dreams as to what we would see. Then the demo appeared on Xbox Live I instantly downloaded it with a gleam in my eyes I was finally playing the fabled Banjo sequel. The game no longer was the same gone was traditional plat forming gone was Kazooie abilities, gone was being able to transform into different creators and the worlds were barley any larger then what was in Conker. Banjo great franchise had been derogated into a glorified racing game. I thought to myself maybe there saving the more traditional Banjo fare for the full game right there just show casing the new elements.  Then the game was released and got mixed scores. I picked up the game paid my $60 dollars beat the game and I said meh. The game was good but it was not a good Banjo game, Rare ruined Banjo. Was it worth the eight years of teasing and hype no, I refuse to consider Nuts and Bolts worth the legend and hype that is Banjo Threeie. I hope Threeie does get made, but I I just wish Nuts and Bolts never was.

Hm, good question Commodore, good question. If I could delete any sequel it would have to be The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. It's not because I think it's bad, I mean I've only played the trial demo for when it came out, but I want to eradicate it because I think it's unnecessary as a Zelda game. Because if I "really" wanted to play it, I would just have to play Link to The Past, play the sailing segments in Wind Waker, read Navi dialog from Ocarina of Time, play the first dungeon in the original Legend of Zelda, and mess around with Pictochat with a stylus. Because of that, I think the game is so unncessary, I keep forgetting it exists and is the only Zelda game I really don't give a crap about since you can play it without playing the actual game itself. 

Thanks for the welcome, glad I could add so much to the convo. 

I want to pick an entry from the Final Fantasy series but there have been so many missteps that it's hard to choose.

Let's begin with something I'm sure we all agree on: Final Fantasy VI was fantastic. It may well have been the pinnacle of the whole series.  It had a simple yet engrossing plot, the characters were some of the most endearing in the whole series, and despite entire lines of dialog which are next to the dictionary under "cliche" it managed to have a very strong emotional impact on its players and even managed a couple of surprises during the course of the plot.

Final Fantasy VII is where I started with the series after Super Mario RPG had gotten me interested in the genre as a whole. When I played it in Spring/Summer 2000 I thought it was absolutely brilliant; it impacted me emotionally in a way games never had and I got addicted to the stat-building/level grinding aspect of the gameplay. I loved how tactical it was both in and out of combat and I wasted hours tweaking my character's materia setups so I had just the right mix of power and utility. In retrospect, I'd say it has aged the worst of all the good FF games, and it started many of the trends which have worn on the series since, but none of that is relevant when discussing whether it's a good game. It is. It's not on the same level as the 16-bit RPGs which preceded it but I'd say it paved the way for the jRPG rennaissance we had on the PS1 and for that we owe it its due.

FF VIII was a mix of brilliant ideas and terrible execution, which is pretty much how I'd describe every game since barring FF XIII. There's nothing wrong with the basic plot or even the characters, the problem is that as it's fleshed out it becomes way more complicated than it needs to be and the characters are made completely unlikable. The fact that they tried a love story-and that many people actually seem to have been touched by it-blows my mind. I don't have anything against love stories; in fact I loved the subtle romantic undertones between Locke and Celes in VI. What I have a problem with is characters I don't care about taking center stage for a good portion of the story when I'd like to just move on.

The biggest sin was that they implemented the junction system and then never used it again. Yeah, it wasn't very good in VIII, not because any one aspect was horrible but because a number of things made it unintuitive, highly exploitable, and overall it was a chore to deal with. The concept-chaining spells with stats to increase the effectiveness of your character-is absolutely brilliant and if it were refined we might see a jump forward for turn-based combat in the current generation. As it is, it's thoroughly unenjoyable.

I loved FFIX. It was an old-school throwback and that's all that really needs to be said. It wasn't as good as the best of the 16-bit era but it was the best of the PS1 FFs in my opinion.

FFX is one of those games that I think I would have loved if it had come a generation or two before but because of things like bad voice acting and over-designed characters it ranks very low on my list. I'll cite Tidus as an example: a lot of people remember him as being a whiny, insufferable git. If you look at just his dialog, though, he isn't. Not really. There are a couple of cringe-worthy moments but his reactions are understandable given his situation. When you add his voice actor to the mix, that's when he becomes a manchild.  Anyway, when all is sad and done I wouldn't actually call it a bad game, I just wouldn't rank it among my favorites whether we're talking all time or just that generation.

X-2 is when FF lost its marbles.  It's not the Charlie's Angels motif or the gameplay or even the story (note:  I don't actually know what it is, I've never played it), it's the fact that they made a direct sequel to an entry in the main FF series, and moreover the game didn't need it.  X had a very strong ending, and for all its flaws it felt like the series was maturing as it took the step into the next generation. X-2 wiped all of that away and set a prescedent where not only does each individual entry become a franchise in itself, it milks the brand for all its worth and dilutes the value of its name. When I was a kid, anything that had the Final Fantasy label was worth playing. Not all of it was gold but at the very least you could pick it up assured that it would have a unique gameplay quirk or it would do something unexpected with its story.  From X-2 onward that went out the window and now I'm actually repelled by the FF brand unless I'm able to confirm through research that it's worth my time.

So that's my definitive answer: FF X-2. For all the flaws the series had exhibited up to that point, it wasn't irredeemable until it abandoned one of the core principles that made FF what it is (that every entry is self-contained) and I believe it's representative of why FF is where it is today.

I also hear that Commander Keen on the Game Boy Color didn't do that franchise any favors, but I haven't played it myself, so it's probably not fair for me to judge. There's a series that needs reviving.