Do you think game sequels with the # 2 in them count as true sequels if....?

they use the same game engine as the first game in the series.

Some examples that come to mind are Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Yakuza 2, Saints Row 2.

Not that I think games released in this manner are bad, they are just more or less 1.5 games (expansion packs even) as opposed to # 2, new game engine sequels.

What other games do you think follow this pattern and are really just 1.5 versions rather than true "2" sequels as a result of using the same game engine?

It definitly depends on the game/developers

Resistance 2 is using the same engine as Resistance: FOM and Ratchet and Clank Future: TOD.(although it is heavily modified)

I dare anyone to call Resistacnce 2, Resistance 1.5

It definitly depends on the game/developers

Resistance 2 is using the same engine as Resistance: FOM and Ratchet and Clank Future: TOD.(although it is heavily modified)

I dare anyone to call Resistacnce 2, Resistance 1.5

Shinedown220

Exactly, the whole 1.5 thing is a valid opinion really, R2 is radically different then the first game in the series...is all about the game in general.

I actually like sequels to use the same engine and maybe just improve graphics, and polish a touch while still providing a new story and things like that. It helps with continuity better.

Great question. The sophomore slump is certainly common enough you think people would steer clear of most #2's - Jak2, PoP2, Halo2 (campaign), DMC2 -- though those games had problems because they changed enough to "ruin" the original experience, not becuase they used the same engine.

For truly great games though I don't mind the 1.5 sequels with my mantra being "same game, more levels? bring it on".

It definitly depends on the game/developers

Resistance 2 is using the same engine as Resistance: FOM and Ratchet and Clank Future: TOD.(although it is heavily modified)

I dare anyone to call Resistacnce 2, Resistance 1.5

Shinedown220

The though kind of looses validility when you think about how different games use the same base engine all the time anyways. So, how much to you focus on the engine being used to framework the game, Why are you not concerned that Ratchet & Clank is not just as much Resistance 1.5 as Resistance 2, loosley by that logic.

I guess I could actually argue, how can you call a game a sequel, when it changes so drastically from the first... but, nonetheless, a sequal is simply something that "continues the narrative of a preceding work."

You're never going to find a sequel that doesn't use the previous game's engine. Only updates/modifications to the engine will be made.King9999

Half-Life 2, Halo 2 and The Sims 2 used different engines than their predecessors, to name a few.

Anyway, I don't think engines are anywhere near as important as actual game design. Although it can be argued that more sophisticated engines open the door for more intricate game design opportunities. However, I never saw it as a requirement.