Games that need no sequel

[Calandrino]

The creator of Resident Evil used to lie that he never played or heard of Alone in the Dark for years. Finally, one day, he came out and admitted that he based it on Alone in the Dark. He and other dummies used to say that he based it solely on Sweet Home, which is retarded since that's a turn based rpg with almost zero resemblance to a survival horror game besides the fact that you're in a mansion and there's ghosts.

It's credible to cite Sweet Home as proto-survival horror, it's not a 100% typical jRPG. Among other things, it makes inventory management important and it's designed for permadeath/iron manning to be viable (although it doesn't enforce it). I can believe RE was influenced by it, even if it took 100 times as much from Alone in the Dark.

Going even further back you get into dumb territory, is Pac Man a survival horror because you're chased by ghosts?

Unironically, Haunted House for Atari 2600 has inventory restrictions (one slot: hardcore!), limited visibility, and enemies that can't be permanently killed. They did what they could. There are certain ideas that "horror" games will tend to converge on. You could maybe dig through old horror-themed text adventures and turn up some parallels to RE or whatever.

Anyhoo, sequels mostly exist for commercial reasons, possibly no game/movie/book really needs one.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Dead Rising

I can see Dead Rising having great sequels, it's just the sequels we got missed the mark repeatedly.

I don't mind Dead Rising 3. It added some great quality of the life features even if it was a bit easy.
Dead Rising Case Zero was good too. Great value for money, and the small town setting was densely packed while remaining logical.

Instead of having a town/city setting, DR2 tried to do this weird Vegas thing, resulting in a bizarre highstreet + casino setting. DR3 had the city setting, but did nothing interesting with it as most of the areas were the same, and many of the buildings you couldn't go in. I never tried DR4.

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

I never tried DR4.

Good. Dead Rising 4 was so bad it killed the series and the company that developed it. In a sense, it was the canary in the coalmine for modern Western developers shitting on the source material and making a game with terrible gameplay, a horrendous story and constant millenial/zoomer humor.

 

[ADN_VIII]

Jedi Fallen Order.

Under no circumstances should a Jedi think continuing to make trouble for the Empire, after multiple narrow escapes from the Inquisition and Vader himself, is a good idea. A sequel is completely unnecessary for these circumstances since the game ended on, "Cal got the girl and is riding off into the sunset."

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Vagrant Story comes to mind. Its a really nice self contained tale that doesn't really need a sequel. Maybe another story set in the same world, but that's it.

Mirror's Catalyst was a prequel, maybe i am too much sperging here but i genuinely think they could somehow expand the story between Catalyst and OG Mirror's Edge, and maybe get new ideas on how Faith and Kate progressing in Mirror's Edge 2: Electric Boogaloo, i could see a FPS-Parkour game happening.

Mirro's Edge Catalyst was reboot, that completely retconned the backstory of Faith and her sister, not a prequel to the original.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

SimCity deserves another look given all that has happened up to and including CS2, but I've found that simulation games just need expansions, not sequels.

Prison Architect unfortunately got ruined by Paradox while never implementing some of the things that I wanted to see, and I still want that Factorio expansion.

 

[ZipDisk]

the game ended on, "Cal got the girl and is riding off into the sunset."

Ironic, that's all I wanted out of Force Unleashed. Man did those endings suck.
Both "Cal" and "Starkiller" both have the incentive to fuck ALL the way off after their adventures.
I do like the weird alternate story possibility from the DLC if Starkiller trolls Luke into losing it on Hoth, but I fucking hate Cripple Sith Freddy Krueger.

 

[Caesare]

I can see Dead Rising having great sequels, it's just the sequels we got missed the mark repeatedly.

While I liked DR2 well enough, I used to wonder why part 2 and every game made after that looked worse than the first game. I found out later that only the first game was made by Capcom, and all the sequels were made by dumb Canadians at Capcom's Canadian branch. None of them had the quality, graphically and mechanically, as the first game imo. The japs are just good at making games like this. It had the perfect balance of length, challenge, fun, and weirdness.

Dead Rising Case Zero was good too. Great value for money, and the small town setting was densely packed while remaining logical.

I remember Case Zero looking better graphically than the full game, too. It looked more like DR1.

 

[Weltraumfürst]

I agree with Sleeping Dogs. I kinda wish it had a bit more shooting in it (not that there was anything wrong with the melee combat. On the contrary. But I just like my guns). I tremendously enjoyed my time with it and Hong Kong was such a well done setting. Like, I've never been there, but after playing it I feel like I have, if that makes sense. To me it'll always be the little game that could. I wouldn't mind a sequel if it was well done, but I certainly don't need one.

I'm kinda drawing a blank beyond that. Bioshock maybe, but I heard Bioshock 2 justifies its existence by looking at Rapture from another angle and just being plain good. I'll be honest and say that I never beat it, although I can't really tell you why.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Thread Tax: Valkryia Chronicles. Though I'm torn on it.

VC1 was a classic. I've not played VC2 or 3, but VC4 is great and cleans up some of the gameplay and writing, but it's clear that the bulk of the plot is just a retread of VC1.

None of them had the quality, graphically and mechanically, as the first game imo.

It had the perfect balance of length, challenge, fun, and weirdness.

This is where DR1 fell apart for me. I liked it, but it frustrated me how you either had to be super autistic to finish the game with the true ending (eg. exploiting the mini chainsaws), or grind survivors for PP to get enough health, speed, and item slots to compete on a second run.

It's why I defend DR3 despite being too spread out and less memorable over all. There's a lot less character maintenance or exploits required. Being able to stock up at a locker just cuts out having to do a 5 minute lap of mixing drinks and getting special weapons.

I also never really got the complaint that DR2 was too sexual. There was that one boss fight with the chain saw furry at the chapel. But everything else DR1 and 3 had.

 

[Terror Sandwich]

Dark souls. The first game had a sense of finality to it, and a choice that left you feeling like you made an impact one way or another. The sequels just ruined that.

Dark Souls series should have gone the way of Final Fantasy and had an unique universe for each game, like Demons's Souls, Bloodborne and Elden Ring have.
DaS 2 and 3 were good in their own ways, but I couldn't care less about their world and lore.

 

[Product Placement]

Ones that got sequels:

The Last of Us - The character's story were done and making a follow up would always under cut the ending even if it managed to turn out well (which part 2 didn't) . If they had to make another one should have been a new set of characters in a new part of america or the world.

Final Fantasy X - FFX-2 has great combat but creative wise was nothing of value in the game and was made for just a crash grab reusing assets.

Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I - Sonic 4 was a game people wanted but was trash. Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II is alright however still being link to the first one rather being it's own game did it no favors.

Ape Escape Academy - Was a Mario party style game for the psp and wasn't good, Ape Academy 2 while a bit better was not what anyone wants from the IP, people want a platform.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii - While the Wii U game is the best for series, it really didn't matter when it was in need a big change up least on a visual and sound level.

Tony Hawk: Ride - People hated this game and didn't really even work, so one year later they double down on this train wreck with Tony Hawk: Shred which sold 3000 copies in it's first week in US.

Gears of War 3 - While new games aren't bad and on a tec level very good, it is clear the staff 's heart aren't in this ip and would rather do something else.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Every game with multiple endings where there isn't a definitive one, like Dragon Age. The result will usually be trying to either refer to all endings mechanically (which will make none of them effective) or try to pull some bullshit "all endings happened" (which will lead to autism).

The only times it can be done if the sequel does not refer to the original game directly and just expands the world.

 

[herefortheactualthreads]

Mirro's Edge Catalyst was reboot, that completely retconned the backstory of Faith and her sister, not a prequel to the original.

Aight my apologies, carry on then

 

[Caesare]

It's why I defend DR3 despite being too spread out and less memorable over all. There's a lot less character maintenance or exploits required. Being able to stock up at a locker just cuts out having to do a 5 minute lap of mixing drinks and getting special weapons.

I have part 3 on my PC but I haven't played it very much. Seemed decent though.

As far as the difficulty goes, DR2 fixed that completely, IMO. They made the survivors way more competent and responsive in that game. You didn't even really have to worry about them when you were leading them to the safe room. It wasn't like part 1, where every escort was nerve racking since the survivors were both fragile and reckless. DR2 survivors could defend themselves just fine.

There was that one boss fight with the chain saw furry at the chapel. But everything else DR1 and 3 had.

Dead Rising 2 is actually how I learned of the existence of Chris Chandler. After beating the game, I was watching videos of the boss fights on YouTube, and all the comments about the chapel boss had people saying he looked like cwc or that he just had to be based on Chris Chan on his love quest.

I didn't know who the fuck "chrischan" was, so I typed the name in on YouTube and found the videos he filmed with the poor lighting in his dirty, toy filled bedroom. I watched about 5 seconds of it, and forgot all about him.

Later I found the cwcki, then the Kiwi farms, and here we are.

 

[Haftag]

that upcoming Perfect Dark reboot really doesn't need to happen.

Specially on the claimed AAAA budget, after all these years of absence.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I can see Dead Rising having great sequels, it's just the sequels we got missed the mark repeatedly.

I don't mind Dead Rising 3. It added some great quality of the life features even if it was a bit easy.
Dead Rising Case Zero was good too. Great value for money, and the small town setting was densely packed while remaining logical.

Instead of having a town/city setting, DR2 tried to do this weird Vegas thing, resulting in a bizarre highstreet + casino setting. DR3 had the city setting, but did nothing interesting with it as most of the areas were the same, and many of the buildings you couldn't go in. I never tried DR4.

Having Dead Rising keep the same vibe but scale up to a small town (like those original zombie movies) would have been the logical extension of it. Basically play into "Night of the Living Dead" instead of "Dawn of the Living Dead." That my lose something important, though, since as I understand (I never watched any of this stuff) Night was a straight horror movie and Dawn had the comedic and satirical aspects.

And for me "need no sequel" doesn't just mean "was good," it also means that the thing doesn't have any new direction (in story, gameplay, or novelty of setting) that could meaningfully improve on it. Some things you could milk forever just by putting it in new settings, like GTA. (Which is one reason why I think it's dumb they just keep milking nostalgia cycling it through the same tired NYC/LA/Miami settings.) It sounds like Dead Rising could go either way.

I got it on sale for $5 yesterday. I never played any of them. I think Dying Light is, somehow, the only zombie game I ever actually played (not counting Walking Dead, but I mean real games, not interactive movies). It was very good, but kind of more its own thing than the quintessential zombie game. It sounds like Project Zomboid is the ideal for your Brooksian survival horror and Dead Rising for action. I'm interested in trying both.

 

[Haftag]

It's credible to cite Sweet Home as proto-survival horror, it's not a 100% typical jRPG. Among other things, it makes inventory management important and it's designed for permadeath/iron manning to be viable (although it doesn't enforce it). I can believe RE was influenced by it, even if it took 100 times as much from Alone in the Dark.

I don't remember which, but the 1st Resident Evil's engine was appropriated from some RPG on the snes.

I can see Dead Rising having great sequels, it's just the sequels we got missed the mark repeatedly.

I don't mind Dead Rising 3. It added some great quality of the life features even if it was a bit easy.
Dead Rising Case Zero was good too. Great value for money, and the small town setting was densely packed while remaining logical.

Instead of having a town/city setting, DR2 tried to do this weird Vegas thing, resulting in a bizarre highstreet + casino setting. DR3 had the city setting, but did nothing interesting with it as most of the areas were the same, and many of the buildings you couldn't go in. I never tried DR4.

4 ain't awful, but: your movement is way too physical and over animated (fuck you Rockstar), Frank no longer pushes zombies around and is stuck if there's bunch in front, the zombies' reach is too long so you end up being interrupted a lot, and some other annoyances that's not too noticable in the main game on easy, but it shows in challenges and dlcs and higher difficulties. Just like SOTTR, another game brought down by a bunch of small issues instead of a huge obvious flaw, and another developed by a side team.

 

[Need for Sped]

Games that should have never got a sequel:
- Bioshock: Besides being one of the most pretentious games I've seen when it comes to writing, Bioshock Infinity was also a massive downgrade gameplay wise. This goes double for whatever crap Levine is cooking right now.
- Subnautica: See above. Both reasons apply.
- Assassin's Creed: I got off Mr. Ubisoft's Wild Ride by AC: Rogue, and both that one and Black Flag felt pretty damn stale, replacing any kind of meaningful innovation with a metric ton of retarded item collections with little to no payoff. It should have ended with Desmond's arc back in 3.
- Fallout: Anything by Bethesda should have never existed, and all the spin-offs published by Interplay were fairly forgettable and derivative. And since we're at it, Fallout 2 was a pretty big shift in tone and story quality and wouldn't particularly miss it if it was erased from history.
- Dragon Age/Mass Effect: Just like rings on a tree, you can pretty much trace Bioware's decline in both sagas. You have an exciting first game (Mass Effect 1/Dragon Age: Origins), followed by a period of things starting to get off the rails and getting too rushed (Mass Effect 3/Dragon Age 2), followed by a "reinvention" that basically boiled down to copying Skyrim and having a shitload of meaningless quests and basically play like a single player MMO, plus a massive injection of woke content (Mass Effect: Andromeda/Dragon Age: Inquisition) and what looks like will be an even worse version, that hopefully will finally make EA take Bioware to the back of the shed and put it down for good (Mass Effect 4/Dragon Age: Dreadwolf)

Games that don't have a sequel and don't need one:
- Alan Wake: I'm aware there is one and it will be released tomorrow, but I'm calling it now: It will never have the charm and likability of the first one (Which also stretched the little gameplay it had a bit too much, particularly with the DLCs)
- Half-Life 2/Portal 2/Left 4 Dead 2: Valve caught lighting in a bottle with these and I'm highly skeptical they will be able to perfect the formula if they decided to take a crack at them in this day and age.
- Surviving Mars: After the double debacle of Surviving the Aftermath/Abyss, it's clear than Paradox has no idea what they're doing as a publisher. Besides, they'll ship a skeleton of a game, and then sell the rest piece by piece with DLCs, fuck these guys.

 

[Scarthew]

I feel like this thread is just "what sequels do you not like" instead. Cause as a general rule game sequels perform pretty well since they iterate on something that already works. I really wish bayonetta had good sequels but we just never got that.