Re: Command & Conquer Ultimate Collection

On 15/03/2024 20:40, candycanearter07 wrote:

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.

Oh don't get me wrong they can be good but for me it's pretty rare that they surpass the original. Did I like BG:II, yes I did but it couldn't capture the magic of BG:I. It also didn't help that I find that D&D starts to break down when you get to higher levels as the game starts being dominated by magic/skills and balanced encounters start going out the window.
You see it the same in films/TV, how many sequels would you find better than the original. I can think of ones that I would say were good but better, not sure about that. Then you have sequels where they seem to have completely forgotten what made the original special, Das Boot is top of my list for that. It was all about just some ordinary men going about their basically mundane tasks punctuated with sheer terror. That just wasn't there in the re-boot.