Sequels that are at least debatbly better than their predecessors? (All genres and mediums)

[Gizmojunk]

Basically it's a bad sequel for being a type of game you don't like... That doesn't work. The core of fallout is very much alive in new vegas and I'd argue it's more present in new vegas than it is in 2.

No, it's a bad sequel for being like a cuckoo in the nest—the same with FO3. These are unrelated games, in all things except for a bit of fiction drapery. FO3 is a TES re-skin with a few cherry picked names from the Fallout IP. FO:NV is FO3 with a few improvements. Arcanum is a better Fallout game than anything after FO2. Wasteland 2 could almost pass for a proper Fallout 3... Which is an awful shame considering it doesn't pass for a Wasteland 2 IMO.

 

[Black Angel]

It’s not overall a bad game inspite of how that above description sounds, though. But it does come short as a Fallout game with its gameplay.

Well, I wouldn't argue in favor of New Vegas because I highly prefer to play Fallout 1&2 and I agree moment-to-moment gameplay sucks in New Vegas.

However, there's one thing that made Fallout 1 really, really great and that one thing is coherency and solidity. Nearly everything is connected with one another in Fallout 1, nothing was truly left out. In this aspect, Fallout 2 is severely lacking, hence why I would disagree with the statement that Fallout 2 is better than Fallout 1 as a sequel. A better game to play, yes, but not exactly a worthy sequel, let alone 'surpassing' its predecessor.

 

[R.Graves]

No, it's a bad sequel...

Lol no. New vegas is one of the best sequels to exist in recent memory. It builds upon the world in a detailed, unique, and satisfying way. It has arguably better writing than 1/2 (especially 2) and its only real problems come from being rushed as fuck and and having to reuse fo3s assets and engine. Near as I can tell, It's the only instance of an fps/rpg hybrid done well. Because rather than being a fps with rpg elements its more accurately an rpg with fps elements.

Arcanum is a better Fallout game than anything after FO2.

This may be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read. This statement boils fallout down to nothing more than a game built on the infinity engine. Which is... Dumb as hell.

 

[Kohno]

Basically it's a bad sequel for being a type of game you don't like...

No. I like it well enough for what it is (Steam clock is running little under 200 hours). It’s a bad sequel because it plays as much like a proper Fallout game as Bethesda’s games, which is to say: not much at all.

The core of fallout is very much alive in new vegas and I'd argue it's more present in new vegas than it is in 2.

No, the core is precisely what is missing. It has the icing and partly the structure and a lot of good intentions, but the core is not there.

New vegas is one of the best sequels to exist in recent memory. It builds upon the world in a detailed, unique, and satisfying way. It has arguably better writing than 1/2 (especially 2) and its only real problems come from being rushed as fuck and and having to reuse fo3s assets and engine.

Come to think of it, it’s not even a sequel by admission of the developer.

It does have good writing (though less organic than either of the originals), all well and good, but it’s the Fallout 3 mimcry that kills it.

This may be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read.

Arcanun is overall truer to the Fallout form (e.g. if you changed the theme of the game, it could be a Fallout game in the same sense as Fallout 3 could be a TES game like its nickname suggests) than any other sequel after Fallout 2. That’s what it means.

However, there's one thing that made Fallout 1 really, really great and that one thing is coherency and solidity. Nearly everything is connected with one another in Fallout 1, nothing was truly left out. I

Yeah, I agree with that.

 

[Gizmojunk]

This may be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read. This statement boils fallout down to nothing more than a game built on the infinity engine. Which is... Dumb as hell.

That's because you don't understand it. It has nothing to do with BioWare's Infinity engine; (which neither Fallout nor Arcanum used).

*Arcanum isn't a Fallout game... It's just a better one than the later Fallout titles. It's because of principles & precepts.

 

[Black Angel]

This may be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read. This statement boils fallout down to nothing more than a game built on the infinity engine. Which is... Dumb as hell.

I think what Gizmojunk meant by that is how Arcanum managed to be a roleplaying game better than New Vegas. Chargen and chardev is significantly better without having to use that Doc Mitchell sequence (which is better than Vault 101 growing up sequence, but unnecessary because the previous Fallouts have no use of those), while chardev managed to abstract leveling to a point where it doesn't feel as bizarre as Fallouts (increasing Speech skill by killing something and leveling up) since in Arcanum you only got 1 point to increase either stat or skill/magic/tech every time you level up. Of course, there's also the turn-based combat which, although messed up in terms of balance because of the option to switch to real-time at will, feels much better than New Vegas's combat.

 

[R.Graves]

It’s a bad sequel because it plays as much like a proper Fallout game as Bethesda’s games, which is to say: not much at all.

New vegas is very much a proper fallout game. It's all there apart from being isometric and turn based.

No, the core is precisely what is missing.

Let's see...
Freedom of choice? Check.
Great villain? Check.
Detailed and believable worldbuiling? Check
Overall consistent lore and tone? Check.
That fallout vibe? Check.

it’s the Fallout 3 mimcry that kills it.

The core of fallout 3 wasn't that bad. New vegas takes fallout 3's core scrapes away the trash and uses it to great effect.

Arcanun is overall truer to the Fallout form (e.g. if you changed the theme of the game, it could be a Fallout game in the same sense as Fallout 3 could be a TES game like its nickname suggests)

Guys... Being the same type of game doesn't make arcanum more fallout than new vegas. By this logic any crpg is more fallout than new vegas. New vegas has everything fallout was. It has the fallout identity. It does it's best to apply fallouts designs and goals to the fo3 base and it does a fantastic job. It is one of the best sequels in recent memory and is certainly a better sequel than fallout 2.

 

[Black Angel]

Graves, we've talked this over and over again. Combat, lockpicking, and hacking are also core part of the gameplay but the very fact that they rely on more player's skills, instead of character's skills means New Vegas is just less of a proper RPG compared to Fallout 1&2. Those are only 3 gameplay elements, but they constitute the majority of moment-to-moment gameplay on New Vegas. That's what Kohno and Gizmojunk talked about. So, no, this part of your argument

It's all there apart from being isometric and turn based.

Doesn't include the bigger picture.

 

[Kohno]

It's all there apart from being isometric and turn based.

And having the RPG mechanics and gameplay the original games had.

That's a pretty hefty "apart from", almost a games core design's worth of stuff.

Let's see...
Freedom of choice? Check.
Great villain? Check.
Detailed and believable worldbuiling? Check
Overall consistent lore and tone? Check.
That fallout vibe? Check.

Freedom of choice I'll give you. The rest is just vague and superficial slapping ones suspenders that could mean anything.

What is "Fallout vibe" to you? That you can have some CYOA stuffies in your quests in post apolyptic environment with a vault boy logo stuck on here and there and some NPC's giving you a plausible history lesson of their current homeland? Surely not?

The core of fallout 3 wasn't that bad.

Ok. This is where you lost me. Fallout 3 is full of shit beyond any hope.

New vegas has everything fallout was. It has the fallout identity. It does it's best to apply fallouts designs and goals to the fo3 base and it does a fantastic job.

New Vegas certainly does not have everything Fallout was. It has the trappings for narrative and quest design and that's all. And unfortunately so too.
I agree that it does a "fantastic job" - well, perhaps not "fantastic", it should've dived deeper - in reiterating and refurbishing Fallout 3, but as that's all it does, it's not really enough to be anything more than a Fallout 3 offshoot. As such it does fairly good job (given the circumstances), but I can't for the life of me consider that that somehow the best shit ever when it's so close to the biggest travesty in the whole series (yes, POS might be worse than 3, but at least it's honest about being a spinoff).

Some trivia in case you didn't know; Sawyer referred to the game as a similiar title to "Vice City" - i.e. not a sequel, just another game in the brand.

 

[Risewild]

In Fallout New Vegas the player has to aim to hit, doesn't matter if the character has 100 guns skill, the player still has to aim to be able to hit the enemy. SPECIAL is also more important in the classic games than FNV (although it is improved over FO3, but still).

I consider Fallout New Vegas a Fallout game, while I consider Bethesda's games not really (FO3 tried a bit, but FO4 totally gave up on even trying). But it is true that compared side by side, it is a weaker cRPG. Writing is quite good, it has choice and consequences, it has nice factions and nice side quests, etc. But the reliance on player skill for combat, lockpicking and hacking makes it weaker as a cRPG and more of a hybrid RPG/Action/Shooter.

It is a different style of game because it is made to follow Fallout 3 using the same engine. For example, if Obsidian had made a Fallout New Vegas using an engine like the the Odyssey engine (used for the KOTOR games, which Obsidian made KOTOR 2) it would be a superior cRPG. It is still a 3D game, open world-esque and doesn't have turns, but would rely on the character skills to do everything.

 

[Kohno]

It is a different style of game because it is made to follow Fallout 3 using the same engine. For example, if Obsidian had made a Fallout New Vegas using an engine like the the Odyssey engine (used for the KOTOR games, which Obsidian made KOTOR 2) it would be a superior cRPG. It is still a 3D game, open world-esque and doesn't have turns, but would rely on the character skills to do everything.

I think this would've worked. I do feel TB is an integral part of the experience, but the principle of having the character act at your command is just as if not more important tenet.
----------------------------------------
New Vegas was always "the best of a bad situation". The liftoff NV had with terms of quality quality felt greater than it actually was because the closest comparison was so radically worse and the disappointment so freshly in memory.

I remember when I heard in 2009 that Obsidian was making a Fallout game in an almost accidental sounding announcement. I was exctatic because it was so soon after Fallout 3 that it just couldn't be another game like it, it made no sense. The letdown was quite something with the reveal that, yes, it would indeed be a refurbished F3. I mean the game, as a "Bethesda game", is not even close to the shit Bethesda makes, but still...

 

[R.Graves]

What I loved about fallout 1 wasn't the mechanics. It was the characters, story, good villain, lore and tone and the multiple endings and freedom of choice. And new vegas arguably does these elements better than even 1. It inarguably does these things better than 2. Saying new vegas is nothing more than an offshoot of 3 is just wrong. The series may have moved to 3d but all of the things I loved about fallout are present in new vegas and amped up to 11. So, for me, it is arguably a better sequel than 2.

 

[Kohno]

Saying new vegas is nothing more than an offshoot of 3 is just wrong.

Why? Technically it's true.

all of the things I loved about fallout are present in new vegas and amped up to 11. So, for me, it is arguably a better sequel than 2.

I can respect that.

To me Fallout has always been the sum of it's parts. All parts. Some parts are more important than others, but they all work in unison to create the whole of the experience. Take one part away and the whole suffers for it (I don't think there was anything irrelevant in the core design of either of the originals). Remove entire design concepts and don't replace them with something that strives for the same goal, and the result is devastating. That's why New Vegas, for me, would not (ever) be better than Fallout 2 even if 2 had twice the inane humor it has - not even if Obsidian had another chance and made a "New Vegas 2" where they improved their content but the game worked like Fallout 4. A huge portion of the original experince - that made appreciate the series 19 years ago - is missing in NV inspite of its good things and intentions, and that hole has not been filled with similiar intentions and experiences.

 

[R.Graves]

(I don't think there was anything irrelevant in the core design of either of the originals).

I may be misunderstanding but a lot of things were poor choices or irrelevant. A lotta skills were irrelevant to all builds. Ever had to wait for an entire town to take their turn? Oof, there should be a proper fast combat option because the one present isn't good enough.

The the only real thing I miss about the originals that is noticeably absent in NV is how many oppurtunities the originals had to use your stats on the world around you whether that be causing a cave in or kicking a door down.

 

[Kohno]

I may be misunderstanding but a lot of things were poor choices or irrelevant.

By the core design I mean the crux of how the game as a whole works. Not any small individual matter like some skill not having enough use through the game, or waiting for townsfolk to take their combat truns. Those are things to be honed and reparied, not removed or shunned - an underused skill is still better than no skill at all in its area of expertise, do not remove it but give it more uses and it's better; combat movement option could include out of combat characters moving simultaneously or that all characters could be set to "snap" to their target hex if need be; and so on. Individual aspects can be repaired, but if the game lack turnbased combat in favor of shooter combat (that strives for wholly different experience) it's already like a dog with wheels for front legs.

The the only real thing I miss about the originals that is noticeably absent in NV is how many oppurtunities the originals had to use your stats on the world around you whether that be causing a cave in or kicking a door down.

Yeah, it was a bummer that that aspect did not make it in (along with certain other features) but in a very limited way.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I may be misunderstanding but a lot of things were poor choices or irrelevant. A lotta skills were irrelevant to all builds.

Which skills? (Seriously?)

Ever had to wait for an entire town to take their turn? Oof, there should be a proper fast combat option because the one present isn't good enough.

Ahh... No. I had a blast fighting the Regulators, and starting three way wars in New Reno; where the Casino thugs fought the street-dealers and prostitutes. This could be done by getting one side to accidentally shoot members of the other (while aiming at the PC). The bigger the battle the better.

*If one really wanted, perhaps there could have been an option to subdivide the battle in to quadrants, where those that are off-screen, and/or out of range to be affected (non-adjacent quadrants), could run their combat sequences concurrently... But for myself, I would want to see the consecutive actions in linear order.

The only kind of fast option suitable or appropriate, would be a (purposely stripped down) combat AI that does simple random attacks until the opponents are dead. The use of this obviously coming at the cost of taking higher than average damage, and losing more than average resources for the fight... To be used when the end-game PC faces down a group of knife wielding vagrants, and the player sees no challenge in it. In that situation, a "Solve" button, could just fade/transition into a calculated result—minus all of the effects and animations of each turn. The player's PC would likely end with less HP and ammo than had they fought the battle themselves.

@Kohno
I am dog-sitting for a friend right now, and that dog (minus the need for the wheels) looks exactly like the one I'm watching; it certainly gave me a start when I first glanced at it.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

IIRC in fallout 1, traps is borderline useless.

 

[Madbringer]

You know, after reading all of this, all I can think of is how much better NV would have been if it had been done in the original Fallout engine. And how absolutely shit, even more than it is now, F3 would have been.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Yeah...IMO by very virtue of FPS gameplay, NV cannot be better than 1 or 2, but its close.

The second you get FPS combat, you can either still have dice roll hit systems like Morrowind, which is...Gamey, or make it affect spread/damage, which barely works, like 3 and NV. ;(

 

[Madbringer]

Which is such a shame, because NV has brilliant writing. And I mean, top notch. The team did the best with what they had to work with, and holy fuck, they made an Oblivion With Guns that is decent. I enjoyed it very much, but it always felt somehow wrong. I guess you can't just mix and match when it comes to storytelling and gameplay, things have to flow, elements have to match, you can't force it. NV did kind of force it, and it kinda works, but it could have been so much more.