Most of the time (but not all of the time), sequels come out and they better their predecessor. Last generations games tended to do that quite often; probably because developers were still learning how to implement new and interesting mechanics and stories. But in this generation of games, sequels are now being thrown out pointlessly, with less development time or perhaps even a different developer. Some sequels aren’t even like that and yet somehow, they’re still just not as good as the originals. Check out 5 games which are worse by either a slight margin or a major one.

Assassin’s Creed: Revelations

Metacritic Score: 80 (Average)

The Better Game: Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood

Metacritic Score: 89 (Average)

This isn’t a “sequel” to Assassin’s Creed II, but I still say it’s a sequel to Brotherhood. Whilst Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood bettered Assassin’s Creed II in almost every way, the same could not be said for Revelations. At this point, it seemed like Ubisoft just wanted to throw in another game so that it may look like the franchise would have an annual release. Many could say that Revelations was just a way to get a quick cash grab. Was it a needed sequel? Not really. The problem with the game is how lazily it was made by adding pointless features that were not only boring as hell to play, but.. well… that’s just it: there was no point to them. Something looked off with Revelations, as character models looked very demented and really unnerved a couple of people (myself included). The multiplayer was a disappointment, as whilst it added features where you could customize almost everything, there were barely any new maps, and the game just threw in rehashes of the maps from Brotherhood. Revelations is probably the most lazily made game of this generation (unless you take Duke Nukem Forever).

Dragon Age II

Metacritic Score: 81 (Average)

The Better Game: Dragon Age: Origins

Metacritic Score: 88 (Average)

The first of two Bioware games in this article. The first game had it all; fresh environments, unique combat, interesting companions that you could even customize, a great story with hard choices, lots of DLC that added to the game and even an expansion that added some new challenges. Dragon Age II, unfortunately, removed pretty much all of that. The story was very mediocre, the combat just didn’t hold up as good, the companions were dreary apart from a minor few, you couldn’t customize your companions and I get the feeling Bioware has given up on DLC for this game now. Many had high hopes that this would be “Game of the Year”, but the fact of the matter is that Bioware sucked the fun out of the franchise, and I think because of Dragon Age II, the sales for the third game will be damaged greatly. The game was in development for just 14 months (that’s even less than the development time of a Call of Duty game) so how did Bioware get it all wrong? Oh hi EA.

Uncharted 3: Drakes Deception

Metacritic Score: 92

The Better Game: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

Metacritic Score: 96

I’m not saying Uncharted 3 was horrendous, because it wasn’t. It was still a strong game worthy of it’s name in the Uncharted franchise. But the thing is, this game just didn’t live up to expectations by myself and a few others. The problems I personally felt with the game is the fact it felt less cinematic than Uncharted 2. Sure, there were lots of bang, crash, thump moments, but there was something more about Among Thieves that had a better story and many more “realistic” close shaves. The gameplay in the multiplayer also felt very tired and very “samey” than the last game’s multiplayer. Sure, the game added a co-op campaign, but was it really needed? I mean really?

Mass Effect 3

Metacritic Score: 92 (Average)

The Better Game: Mass Effect 2

Metacritic Score: 95 (Average)

An obvious choice, but it’s true. Now before you start thinking to yourself: “Oh it’s worthy of a 0/10″ or something like that, stop being such an idiot, because it’s not. You can’t hate on a game just because of it’s ending, because the 40 hours of gameplay prior to it was still an interesting ride. What I personally didn’t enjoy about the game was the lack of new characters, an unoriginal multiplayer and complicated features (like the readiness). Mass Effect 2 was longer, slicker, sexier and most importantly had the better story. You didn’t need to know the story of Mass Effect 1 to play it, whereas if you started your journey at Mass Effect 3, you’d literally be thinking: What the fuck is going on? Who are they? What is that? What?! Whilst others I know don’t think so, I loved the new companions you encountered, and there were plenty of them. Each character had their own back stories and characteristics, and I found it a joy to get to know them better. In Mass Effect 3, there were just 3 new companions (if you count EDI as a “new companion”); the other companions were from the previous two games.

Gears of War 3

Metacritic Score: 91

The Better Game: Gears of War 2

Metacritic Score: 93

(SPOILERS IN THIS ONE)

Gears of War 3 was by no means a bad game. It was still fun to play and really brought the trilogy to a good finish. But the problem was: we’ve seen it all before. The campaign took it’s toll and told a story which many didn’t expect. In fact, the story was the complete opposite to what we were expecting. How many of you were expecting the locust queen to be revealed as Marcus’ mother? That question was left unanswered. Dom’s death was predictable, yet I’m sure many of you hoped maybe he would fight on to the very end to avenge Maria, but instead he took the selfish route by taking the easy way out… I didn’t see Dom as selfish. The main problem was the multiplayer; beast mode was a welcomed feature, and it’s definitely a feature I’d like to see return, but the main multiplayer felt tired; we definitely had seen it all before.

Not-So Honorable Mentions

  • Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is worse than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is worse than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare – Felt too obvious to mention above but it is true.
  • Red Faction: Armageddon is worse than Red Faction: Guerrilla – Armageddon certainly had some decent gameplay, but it just couldn’t hold its own.
  • Fallout: New Vegas is worse than Fallout 3 – Whilst it’s not a sequel as such, was New Vegas really a necessary game? It felt more like a cash-in.
Join the forum discussion on this post
StumbleUponRedditShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,