Have people gone insane and forgotten what a sequel is? 1.5 would denote that they just took the exact same game and levels and just added a couple of extra levels. Examples of a half-sequel are games like Ninja Gaiden Black or SSX tricky. Gears of War 2 takes place later in the time line, has a completely new set of levels, different story, new characters, new weapons, etc.
If we're going to say that gears 2 isn't a real sequel by this screwed up logic, then let's apply it to other games as well: Fallout 3 isn't a real sequel, it's just oblivion with guns, Mass Effect isn't a new game, it's just KOTOR with a voiced protagonist, Grand Theft Auto 4 is just like the 3 previous GTA games but with nicer graphics, Resistance 2 is just resistance 1 with new levels, Fable 2 is just fable with guns and bigger areas, and so on and so forth.
If you thought those statements sounded stupid, I totally agree, but referring to gears 2 as being gears 1.5 is equally as stupid.
UT_Wrestler
Perhaps your standards for a "true sequel" is lower than mine. You are definitely right about games like Ninja Gaiden Black a real "1.5" game, but as some people see it, the game hardly does anything new, and merely expands upon the first game. What a lot of people including me consider in a "true" sequel is a game with at least a new feature, rather than just a new story. Games like Fallout 3, GTA4, Resistance 2, Fable 2, add at least one new feature than it's predecessor. A worthy feature are as such: new game engine, huge tweaking, etc. Some examples from games: huge NPC improvement, and new game engine in TESIV: Oblivion (coming from TESIII:Morrowind), or dual-weapon wielding, and XBOX Live in Halo 2 (coming from Halo).
Games like Gears 2, or Rainbow 6: Vegas 2, merely added new weapons, multiplayer maps/modes, new story, and did nothing else. Merely EXPAND. I find them as disappointments as they should be called stand-alone EXPANSION games. The only reason they would call it a sequel would be a new story, and nothing else. They should be called stand-alone EXPANSION games, and should sold for 10/20$ less, because face it, do you think you should pay 60/50$ for a new story and nothing else? Did you get enough "bang" for your buck?
Now, a perfect example of a game that did the same as Vegas 2, or Gears 2, in just adding a new story, multiplayer maps/modes, weapons etc. BUT sold well and wasn't a disappointment was Crysis: Warhead. The game merely EXPANDED from the original Crysis in adding new things such as a NEW STORY. They called it a "stand-alone expansion" game, and they sold it for much cheaper than the original game. The game sold well, and people didn't find it a disappointment because people KNEW not to expect a whole different game. Which is why Gamespot as well doesn't recieve it as disappointing. Now, if they have called Crysis: Warhead, Crysis 2 instead, and sold for the average $50/60 there would have been a lot of hell to pay. Call of Duty: World at War, is another good example, but not sold at a lower price.
What I'm trying to say is that games like Vegas 2, and Gears 2 should have been released as a stand-alone expansion game, which a lot of console games don't do, and people would rather sell it at the normal $50/60 and call it a sequel, than call it a stand-alone $40/50 game.
Log in to comment