 |
|
LeftHand
|
|
New York
Jul 2004
time: 05:19
|
|
I don't like Civ3 as much as I liked Civ2 and still do. The same happened with MOO too..
Is there any series of games where the second sequel was actually a lot better than the previous one? The only second sequel that did not totally let me down was X-COM series and the first sequel was the best of course, but the second sequel was still enjoyable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LeftHand
|
|
New York
Jul 2004
time: 05:19
|
|
Warcraft 3 was a disappointment. WC2 was just too good. Settlers, I agree.
Super Mario 3 could be an exception. Super Mario 1 was good, but Super Mario 2 was bad... Super Mario 3 was good again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adagio
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrSpike
WC3 was very different from WC2, and highly successful, both in SP and MP. It still has 100,000s of players more than 2 years after release. |
But for those (like me) who liked WC 2, but hate the changes they made to WC3, then is kinda natural to say that WC3 really sucks...
This would kinda be the like if for example Bullfrog makes a game they call Syndicate 3, but this time they don't just rely on firepower, but also on witchcraft (or whatever)... and then let's say that this game sells much more than the first two games, but all the fans of the original games hates it...
Would you call it a success? Seen from the money perspective for the company, then yes it's a success, but by seing on the negative side effects of it, then it's a failure
* Adagio looks towards the "settlers"* 5 
* I hate to call the 5th version a settlers game 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Standup
|
|
Championship Manager 3 was a big improvement although i really didn;t take to Championship Manager 4.
Railroad Tycoon 3 wasn't an improvement.
Grand Theft Auto 3 was worth buying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adagio
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrSpike
From the money/sales side and the fact that 100,000s of player still play it more than 2 years after release. What more do you want?
If you don't like it, fine, that's your prerogative. But as a game it clearly doesn't suck in the way that virtually would say MOO3, for instance, does. |
But the point was that it doesn't feel like Warcraft for me... nomatter how good the game is (even if I liked WC3), it went too far away from what I felt was Warcraft, to make me like to call it Warcraft...
They should have called it something else, just not Warcraft 3
And the same thing about Dune... the first Dune game was AFAIK nothing like the sequels (the gameplay changes drastic, while only the story remained)... I never played the first Dune and loved Dune 2, but I don't like it that they made a game called dune 2 that played completely different than the first game... Again here they should have given it a different name
Or like that Fallout Tactics... I've never played it, but from I've read it only has the basic story in common with Fallout 1+2. At least the people who made that game didn't call it Fallout 3
Not all is about money... do you see where I'm heading?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2004 19:11
. too soon to tell.
).. if not, then it should be on that list also...
|