Sequels
Halo 2 performs fantastically.
Final fantasy 23 (or whatever they got to) is vastly superior to the original.
Warcraft -> II -> III all continue to become better (this may be just my opinion)
Marathon, Doom...
It seems to me that the general trend for computer games is that they get better as they bring the sequels out. (Emphasis on general.)
On the other hand the general trend for movies is that they get worse in sequels.
Books and popular music seem to be somewhere in between and it could be noted that 'classical' music tends to fall into the improving category (within a particular composer's output).
Please post notable exceptions, or possible explanations!
Final fantasy 23 (or whatever they got to) is vastly superior to the original.
Warcraft -> II -> III all continue to become better (this may be just my opinion)
Marathon, Doom...
It seems to me that the general trend for computer games is that they get better as they bring the sequels out. (Emphasis on general.)
On the other hand the general trend for movies is that they get worse in sequels.
Books and popular music seem to be somewhere in between and it could be noted that 'classical' music tends to fall into the improving category (within a particular composer's output).
Please post notable exceptions, or possible explanations!
Comments
There are games where story is the most significant element, and direct sequels for them tend to be worse, just like with the movies. For most games story plays either a minor or no role at all.
You can make gameplay better by tweaking the rules but leaving them the same for the most part. You can't do that to a story.
Computer game sequels usually have more hardware and software (engine) technology at their disposal than the first game. That gives them better looks, better sound, and in some rare cases, new gameplay, better networking, etc.
Even if there's a significant amount of story in a game, its sequel often just takes place in the same world, and doesn't for instance have same characters.
If you think about the quality of games in the context of the overall game market of their time, sequels usually aren't better even if the game is not story driven. Warcraft was an awesome game, I played huge amounts of it with my friends. Warcraft 2 we played a bit and went back to Command & Conquer. Warcraft 3, played a bit, went back to Starcraft.
Even not considering the context, if you just look at the games side to side, there are many non-story driven games that were better than their sequels. In other words, the changes they made worsened the gameplay and so the experience is worse. Just off the top of my head, C&C, Aliens vs Predator were such games. Most agree that some Mario games are worse than the previous one. I like SMB3, SMW, Mario64, the rest not as much.
Also, Toy Story I was an ok kids movie that in the end had to break its own rules to resolve the storyline. TS II presented a modern protagonist with a true dilemma, which really tears him apart, both paths being equally deserving and praiseworthy, whereas most storylines present no more questioning of obligation, faith and loyalty than the occasional "How do I express my clear-cut moral outrage better: with the semi-automatic that I lifted off the baddie I conscientiously didn't kill or with my fists?"
Hot Shots Part Deux. Deux times better than the 1st. "I loved you in Wall Street!"
As for overreaching theories, I think that there are cases where sequels are better and those where they are worse. The first is usually when the creators feel freed by the limitless possibilities of already established and familiar setting and characters, and can focus more on content, relying on what has been once successful as a way to create something greater.
The second type is usually more conservative, trying not to create something new or greater but to recreate the success / experience of the 1st. This will always fail, for lack of ontological authenticity in a copy. Also you have the case of lazy folks resting on their laurels.
--B