Which game sequels make the first game almost obsolete?

Seriously guys? No one is going to mention it?

images


>same map, but with better exploration
>verticality sucked, so we are giving you "Ascend"
>weapon durability sucked, so we are giving you "Fuse"
>dungeons sucked, so we are giving you actual dungeons now.

It's basically BOTW remade. So much better than the original in pretty much every way, making the original feel like a tech demo.

Going from TOTK to BOTW is rough.

Assasins Creed 1 after 2 is still great: different characters, story, map, gameplay. Same for so many other mentions here, like Uncharted. Sure 2 looks much better than the first, but 1 is still a lot different.
I'm with you. BotW just didn't click with me at all
 
Paper Mario: Thousand Year door, Luigi's Mansion 2, Forza Horizon 2, Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 2, Half Life 2, Left 4 dead 2 and there are more but that's on the top of my head.
 
Lots of 90s fighting game sequels are just better replacements of the originals: Street Fighter 2, Tekken 2, Mortal Kombat 2 to name a few.

Dark Cloud 2
Octopath Traveler 2

I would almost put Zone of the Enders 2 on here, but there's juuuuust enough story significance from ZoE1 to make it worth playing.
 
Mother 2 (Earthbound)? I haven't played either but nobody talks about the first game.
Seriously guys? No one is going to mention it?

images


>same map, but with better exploration
>verticality sucked, so we are giving you "Ascend"
>weapon durability sucked, so we are giving you "Fuse"
>dungeons sucked, so we are giving you actual dungeons now.

It's basically BOTW remade. So much better than the original in pretty much every way, making the original feel like a tech demo.

Going from TOTK to BOTW is rough.

Assasins Creed 1 after 2 is still great: different characters, story, map, gameplay. Same for so many other mentions here, like Uncharted. Sure 2 looks much better than the first, but 1 is still a lot different.
Gonna have to disagree.
Exploration never felt like much of a factor in TotK. The game is set up for you to just zoom from one place to the other (like how the towers blast you into the sky so you can just fast travel to one and glide your way to wherever you want). Why would you even ever use the horse in TotK, for example? And the added sky and underground areas are largely empty with little to see or do.
I don't think ascend really adds much vertical game play. It's literally just for going up, and ends up kind of being used to just cheese a lot of areas, so the devs have to try to design around it (like literally not letting you use it in many shrines). It's a cool ability, but the game itself hasn't been designed around the verticality.
Yeah, they added "dungeons", yet the dungeons are somehow less complex than the divine beasts in BotW. The only one that was half decent was the Rito one.

The story is significantly worse than BotW.
The visuals are largely the same. The gameplay is largely the same. The only real major difference is the stuff you can do with the ultrahand.
It also doesn't look like the game will reach the same number of sales as BotW, so rendering it obsolete seems like a stretch.
 
Kind of a deep cut, but the second Pokémon TCG on the Gameboy. It included the entire first game + a whole sequel. Only released in Japan, but there's fan translations nowadays.

Hard disagree on this one. The original had, I thought, much better powers / abilities. The dungeons were fine, for me at least, and exploration felt a lot more natural. Tears of the Kingdom, and it's weird "let's glue a bunch of parts together and solve physics puzzles" got on my last fuckin nerve - in fact I think this is the only Zelda game I completely gave up on halfway through out of sheer frustration.
I thought BotW was better for the same reasons too, I hated how every little thing required gluing shit together. I almost gave up, but I did manage to finish it. The story was pretty good though.
 
Top Bottom