What games do you think didn't need a sequel, but got one anyway?

Discussion in 'Video Games' started by Clear_Note, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. Clear_Note

    Clear_Note Demon King/Sith Warrior

    What games do you think didn't need a sequel, but got one anyway?

    I think DBZ Supersonic warriors didn't need a sequel. They totally changed the gameplay for the second game and tossed out all the old stuff, it's better of being treated as a standalone game, NOT a sequel.

  2. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    Madden pick any of them.

    Just update the rosters don't need a whole new game with 2 or 3 gimmicky features.
  3. viLky

    viLky ykLiv

    Final Fantasy X. They took away some from that game by creating a horrible sequel that wasn't needed. At all! It was basically all mini-games and some plot. Eww...
  4. missingno

    missingno Registered Member

    I agree with that.

    Same with other various EA sports titles.

    Not going to say they're bad, just not worth 50-60 dollars a year for slight changes.

    Also, the Swordquest series for the Atari 2600. They sucked, yet there were three of them. At least they canceled Air World (fourth installment) rather than releasing a fourth failure.
  5. Duke1985

    Duke1985 EatsApplePieShitsFreedom

    Joe and Mac


    The Lost Vikings

    I liked the sequels for both of them, but I don't think they were necessary.
  6. dDave

    dDave Guardian of the Light V.I.P.

    Sim city, seriously they just got really bad after sim city 2000. Sim City classic and Sim City 2000 together were great and there is no way that they needed to make any more games after that, they made several, and they were all terrible.
  7. Atreyu

    Atreyu #2 New Zealander

    Winning post
  8. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Final Fantasy X was my answer half a second after reading the thread title.

Share This Page