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

Clear_Note

Demon King/Sith Warrior
#1
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.
 
#3
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...
 

missingno

Registered Member
#4
Madden pick any of them.

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

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
#5
Joe and Mac

and

The Lost Vikings

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

dDave

Guardian of the Light
V.I.P.
#6
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.