Are second sequels doomed to fail?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Pekka
GTA 3, definitely!

Thanks for reminding about the XCom..

yeah GTA3 was awesome...

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by General Ludd
MOO3
Civ3
HoMM3&4
Doom3
Settlers 3
SimCity3
Warcraft3


Yep... seems so. What did I miss?

Hey hey hey- HoMM III was an excellently produced game. True it didn't have 'charm' but it was professional.

However, I fully agree about HIV.. .that was a downgrade...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Agree about GTA3... that was the best one of that series.

Morrowind (TES 3) was also very good.

[Adagio]

I still like GTA2 better than GTA3... but I guess that's mostly because of the MP part... or lack of the same...

[lord of the mark]

would you call Age of Mythology a second sequel?

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Barinthus
Final Fantasy III, American version was champs.

It's not really a second sequel if we start to nitpick, though.

How about SMAC? It is in essence the second sequel to Civilization... the true Civ3.

[Jethro83]

I don't necessarily believe second sequels are doomed to fail.

I enjoyed Civ III more than I enjoyed Civ II, strangely enough. They still have a long way to go to make it the ultimate TBS experience, but it was still well worth my money.

Super Mario III was definitely an excellent game, even though SMB II was my favourite of that trilogy.

Ultima III was apparantly a great game for its time. Of course, since it was before my time, and I have different standards, I haven't really been able to get into it as much as I would have liked (and I do admit, Ultima IV was much better. Still Ultima III is better than Ultima I and II).

Heroes of Might and Magic III was excellent, probably my favourite in the HOMM series.

Rome Total War is my new favourite game at the moment. I loved Shogun and Medieval, but to me, Rome just blows its predecessors away.

And Warcraft III, while quite different to its predecessor (yes, WC II was a masterpiece), is still worth playing, despite the moronic, immature brats you have to put up with on Battle.net. I may have had issues with it in the past, but all in all, its still a great game.

[Skanky Burns]

The problem with sequels is that you have to change enough to make buying (and playing) the new game worthwhile. The Tomb Raider series with its continuously decreasing sales shows what happens when you don't change enough.

On the other hand, there is a temptation to change too much. XCom went from a strategic/tactical hybrid game into a flightsim clone (or something, I never even tried those abominations). Settlers changed from an economic management game to yet another rts clone.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
However, I fully agree about HIV.. .that was a downgrade...

HIV?

That's a bad acronym to use for sure.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Dissident
fallout3? . too soon to tell.

Baldur's Gate 3? hasn't been made

It never will, Throne of Bhaal was the end of the story.

[Aramis]

imho, SimCity 3UL was a big improvement over SC2.
CivIII was my introduction to the Civ series and it blew me away. I've since played CivII, and while my whole opinion could be different if I'd had CivII first, it left me unexcited.
Played my nephew's Doom3 once. No desire to play again.
RomeTW hands down best in the TW series.
Caesar3 held my interest longer than its predecessor.
So it comes down to personal taste, I guess.

[Adagio]

I never played SimCity 3k Unlimited, so I don't know how much that added, but for some reason I just didn't feel SC3k was that much of an improvement... sure, I played it a lot, but for some reason it just felt like an graphical update and adding some things that I didn't care much about...

But on the other hand it didn't kill the game like some 2nd sequels tend to do...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Adagio


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

No it doesn't feel like Warcraft2. That's the point, it forged new ground. You can't damn a game both for adding nothing and also that's it's not the same as previous incarnations. WC2 is a good game. WC3 is also a good game, and it's not merely more of the same, which I think is a good thing.

[DrSpike]

And to the larger question here, of course we can all think of prime examples of pants second (and first!) sequels. However, they are not doomed to fail, and lots of good sequels have been mentioned here.

The real problem with a sequel is retaining enough of what made a game good without copying it. This is not at all easy, which is why so many sequels are poorly received. Companies do face a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

Equally of course, we have to consider that game series are being sold to an existing customer base, which makes life easier. All too often though, the existing base gives too much incentive to not produce a top notch product.

Those 2 points are how I see the sequel debate.