Series where the first entry is still the best
Jan 18, 2018 5:11:06 GMT -5
Post by GamerL on Jan 18, 2018 5:11:06 GMT -5
I feel like it's rare that the very first entry in a video game series is the best one, usually the first one is simply laying the groundwork for developers to work from and refine and really knock it out of the park in the future so that even if the first one was a really great game at the time and remains quite good, it's still probably not the best one.
But there are exceptions of course and I'd like to know what in your opinion are the series where the first entry remains untopped by it's sequels, note however that I'm talking about series with at least 3 entries not a game that only got one, inferior sequel.
Anyhoo to begin the most clear example of this is Dead Rising I think, the first game remains one of my all time favorite games and while the first sequel (and it's spinoff/remake Off The Record) are decent, playing the two back to back in 2016 revealed to me that the first is without a doubt way better.
While DR2 has a few improvements, mostly quality of life stuff to cut down on frustration, it's just not as engaging as the original, the first Dead Rising could be tough but with some perseverance is actually very fair difficulty wise, everything in Dead Rising is finely tuned whereas the sequel, with the different physics and "feel" of everything just feels off compared directly to the original, one thing I noticed is that in DR2 you can mostly just run past the zombies whereas the first game forces you to deal with thicker, more dangerous crowds, seems like DR2 compromised this by having the zombies have "randomized" appearances rather than the same set of zombies seen in the first game at the cost of sheer number of zombies onscreen, not a fair trade if you ask me.
At the end of the day though Dead Rising 2 is still fine if inferior, however I found Dead Rising 3 to be pretty terrible when I tried it, granted I didn't get far but right off the bat I was put off by the more serious tone, darker color palette and generic city setting that just didn't feel Dead Rising at all, the devs said they were going for the "Call of Duty audience" and it showed, resulting in a pretty garbage game from what I saw (and there's just too much other stuff out there to devote the time to giving the game another chance)
And finally that brings me to Dead Rising 4, which at first glance seemed like a return to form with the return of Frank and even the Willamette setting of the first game, but the game got a cold critical reception and I still haven't played it yet a year after it's release, I'd still like to try it eventually but my expectations aren't super high though it's got to be better than 3, right? (right?)
The problem seems to be the old tried and true "Japanese series goes to the west" problem (see also: Silent Hill, Castlevania) with the first being developed in house at Capcom and then the series given to a Vancouver based developer, who did an ok job at first but seemed to have lost the plot as time went on, hopefully Capcom will bring the series back to Japan and a potential Dead Rising 5 will be a return to form (RE7 gives me a lot of hope)
Anyway, it's a real shame Dead Rising didn't turn out so great as a series, but we'll always have that original game, which both remains great and even works as a mostly standalone story, so it's easy to ignore everything that came afterwards without feeling like you've been left hanging.
The second example is another Capcom series and that's Devil May Cry, I don't have as much to say about this one but while I know 3 has a big following and it's certainly a good game, I prefer the more Resident Evil feel of the original, that castle is so much cooler than the more bland tower in 3 and I like Dante more as a stoic badass with a sense of humor than the goofball younger Dante in 3 (though he's fine too) and I think we can all agree that regardless of what you personally think 2 it's certainly not the best in the series (I think it's total garbage and basically ignore it), haven't played 4 yet but I also doubt it's tops the original.
But there are exceptions of course and I'd like to know what in your opinion are the series where the first entry remains untopped by it's sequels, note however that I'm talking about series with at least 3 entries not a game that only got one, inferior sequel.
Anyhoo to begin the most clear example of this is Dead Rising I think, the first game remains one of my all time favorite games and while the first sequel (and it's spinoff/remake Off The Record) are decent, playing the two back to back in 2016 revealed to me that the first is without a doubt way better.
While DR2 has a few improvements, mostly quality of life stuff to cut down on frustration, it's just not as engaging as the original, the first Dead Rising could be tough but with some perseverance is actually very fair difficulty wise, everything in Dead Rising is finely tuned whereas the sequel, with the different physics and "feel" of everything just feels off compared directly to the original, one thing I noticed is that in DR2 you can mostly just run past the zombies whereas the first game forces you to deal with thicker, more dangerous crowds, seems like DR2 compromised this by having the zombies have "randomized" appearances rather than the same set of zombies seen in the first game at the cost of sheer number of zombies onscreen, not a fair trade if you ask me.
At the end of the day though Dead Rising 2 is still fine if inferior, however I found Dead Rising 3 to be pretty terrible when I tried it, granted I didn't get far but right off the bat I was put off by the more serious tone, darker color palette and generic city setting that just didn't feel Dead Rising at all, the devs said they were going for the "Call of Duty audience" and it showed, resulting in a pretty garbage game from what I saw (and there's just too much other stuff out there to devote the time to giving the game another chance)
And finally that brings me to Dead Rising 4, which at first glance seemed like a return to form with the return of Frank and even the Willamette setting of the first game, but the game got a cold critical reception and I still haven't played it yet a year after it's release, I'd still like to try it eventually but my expectations aren't super high though it's got to be better than 3, right? (right?)
The problem seems to be the old tried and true "Japanese series goes to the west" problem (see also: Silent Hill, Castlevania) with the first being developed in house at Capcom and then the series given to a Vancouver based developer, who did an ok job at first but seemed to have lost the plot as time went on, hopefully Capcom will bring the series back to Japan and a potential Dead Rising 5 will be a return to form (RE7 gives me a lot of hope)
Anyway, it's a real shame Dead Rising didn't turn out so great as a series, but we'll always have that original game, which both remains great and even works as a mostly standalone story, so it's easy to ignore everything that came afterwards without feeling like you've been left hanging.
The second example is another Capcom series and that's Devil May Cry, I don't have as much to say about this one but while I know 3 has a big following and it's certainly a good game, I prefer the more Resident Evil feel of the original, that castle is so much cooler than the more bland tower in 3 and I like Dante more as a stoic badass with a sense of humor than the goofball younger Dante in 3 (though he's fine too) and I think we can all agree that regardless of what you personally think 2 it's certainly not the best in the series (I think it's total garbage and basically ignore it), haven't played 4 yet but I also doubt it's tops the original.