Sujet : Re: Command & Conquer Ultimate Collection
De : candycanearter07 (at) *nospam* candycanearter07.nomail.afraid (candycanearter07)
Groupes : comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.actionDate : 15. Mar 2024, 21:40:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : the-candyden-of-code
Message-ID : <ut2bn2$2f6ul$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
JAB <
noway@nochance.com> wrote at 14:01 this Friday (GMT):
On 14/03/2024 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
Star..
>
I think sequels are hard as, well at least for me, what makes the
original game so special is that it was doing something a bit new and a
sequel just won't have that. A couple of exceptions I can think of are
Combat Mission II:Barbarossa to Berlin and Close Combat III: The Russian
Front. Both of them improved a formula that I really liked but the big
draw was they were based on the Eastern Front which I just find more
interesting. Oh and a special mention to FO:NV.
>
Most of the time though, I know I'm not going to enjoy it as much as the
game that came before.
*Sometimes* sequels are actually good, but it usually seems like a way
to make more money off the brand.
-- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
Re: Command & Conquer Ultimate Collection
Re: Command & Conquer Ultimate Collection