Not at all, you have a point there and I did consider that. It's probably a good question to ask whether it's bad to abandon a predecessor in one way or another, be it thematically, mechanically, what have you. Furthermore, to be fair, if someone enjoyed Fallout for the gameplay and didn't give a rat's ass about the setting, Fallout 2 is actually a pretty competent sequel.

However, if I am not completely mistaken, as far as RPGs were concerned fantasy was the dominant setting with barely any scifi, let alone post apo. I'm way out on a limb here, but I assume part of Fallout's success was taking that setting and doing it right. Bleak, dark, with just the right pinch of black humor.

To get to the point, you're completely correct, at the very least while judging the game in a vacuum. I'd argue however that in comparison to the tone and atmosphere created by the original Fallout the sequel shat the bed big time. Question is, does that make it a bad sequel? I'd say it does, but that might be up to interpretation. Fallout might just be a weird series like that, I'd also disagree with you on Fallout 3. At the risk of inducing a sizable amount of facepalms, I think it's one of the strongest games ever.

I'm actually not sure I agree on that one. You are quite right, it takes a while for the first pistol to pop up, but the enemies up to that point took that into account and were fairly forgiving, weren't they? Of course, if it's your first time through and you are planning to go into energy weapons, things are slightly complicated iirc.

Thanks for the reply! :)
From your previous post, I didn't understand you meant this; under this point of view, your criticism is more than legit.
Personally, I don't care much when a sequel does not stay true to its predecessors, as long as its quality remains good. One example above all: Castlevania. I loved the original sidescrollers up to Rondo of Blood, then when the series changed shape to become the "Metroidvania" everyone knows I liked that as well -a bit less, true, but nobody can deny many good games came from the sudden shift. I also appreciated the first Lords of Shadow, meaning that for me radical change is not necessarily bad, not even in the same series. That's doubly true if you liked Fallout 3, a game -whether bad or good- in no possible way on the same line as the original, especially considering the messed up lore and the “role play shooting” gameplay; those are probably the same reasons while I have enjoyed New Vegas (same mechanics as FO3, but with the “correct” lore and imo a superb writing) immensely more.
I think that Fallout 2 was very good, but I also think everybody has the right to disagree -especially if, like you, they bring valid points to the table.

To be sincere, it didn't feel like that to me. In the beginning of the game, unless you deliberately try to cause trouble in towns, it's hard to find an opponent armed with guns, and when they appear you have probably found at least two gun wielding companions already. Also, not all missions can be completed early on (remember that one on the alien infested mine)? Playing as a melee character would probably give you an enormous edge during the first hours, and with a diplomat (my favourite build) you can avoid the early hard fights very often.

I have to agree with you, though there is the question what constitutes good quality, as weird as that sounds. See, this is the funny thing about rating sequels. I haven't finished NV, but what I played I'd consider actually pretty bad. And I think it very much depends on your expectations and what you value in a given title. Lore for example, since you mention it, is superb in Fallout 3 imo. Pre-war lore, that is. If you forced me to comment on the main story line of that game, I could probably find so many holes, it's not even funny. What that game did right, masterfully in fact, though, was build a decent pre-war world and then build a decent post apo world on top of it. There's not necessarily strong writing going on and the whole BoS/Outcast conflict is downright silly, but the game tells a lot of little stories through its world.

Incredibly minor spoilers:
The two morphine (or I think med-x in vanilla ... okay, there's a strike against the game) syringes on the nightstand next to a bed of two corpses in a minefield house - that's not just loot, that's setting the whole scenery when you realize "oh, people chose to kill themselves in here". The point when you realize that Megaton is full of terrible people and maybe, just maybe, you should have nuked it after all. I love that stuff and the game is incredibly good at it, hence the high praise.

Now of course someone could say "Well, that's all nice and good, but really, that's not why anyone else is playing these games. What you want is Stalker. Or Gone Home, you filthy casual."
The interesting thing about these discussions is that that might actually be a completely correct statement. I think I am doing a 180 here, but yeah, makes it sort of difficult to judge a game on its merits as a sequel.

Reincarnation in Disgaea D2 has one mechanic that didn't exist in other Disgaea games: Growth Correction. Basically, in addition to everything else, there is a multiplier on stat growth that increases with the square of the number of times you reincarnate. After 25 reincarnations, it's 100%; after 50, it's 400%. It caps out there unless you enable Rasetsu mode, ad which point it continues up to 10000% after 250 reincarnations (by which point it is hard not to max out your level up stat gains). Note that Disgaea D2 (like Disgaea 3 and 4, and unlike 1 and 2) increases the cost with each reincarnation for generic (but not story) characters.

By the way, in Disgaea 2, Ghosts are good while SP is still relevant (and in the PSP version (which I have not played) they magichange into staves. Orcs, meanwhile, are extremely good once they get Orc God. High ATK aptitude + extra ATK at low HP (easily triggerable with a weight) + fast leveling makes them incredibly powerful. Plus, if you're not playing the PSP version, since they're monsters, all you need to do is catch a few level 9999 Nekomatas and then find an Item World floor with an Orc and a Enemy Level Up geo panel to catch a level 9999 Orc. (Make sure you have unlocked the tier in question first; Dark World 1-2 is a good level for catching a couple of the tiers.)

By the way, from what I have read, Disgaea 3 could be considered a bad sequel. The thing is that they added skill boosting to the game. By spending Mana, you can boost the power (and SP cost!) of a skill rather drastically. Enemies also get boosted skills. When both sides have heavily boosted skills, every hit is a one hit kill, making HP and defense completely useless. (I understand the reason the mechanic exists; to make sure SP never becomes totally irrelevant like it does in 1 and 2. Unfortunately, it completely breaks high-level combat.)

What did you think of Castlevania 2 (a Metroidvania released well before the modern Metroidvanias; Alucard didn't even exist as a character at the time of release)? How about Vampire Killer if you played it (predecessor of Castlevania 1; the individual stages are non-linear, with things like merchants and keys)?

Stronghold 3 a bug fest that teached me to never preorder anything again.

Here's another interesting case: Dragon Quest 5. (Note that I am only considering the original versions of these games, not the later remakes.) It is disappointing both from a gameplay perspective and a feminist perspective.

Note that there are *spoilers* in the feminist perspective part of this post.

From a gameplay perspective:

The biggest disappointment is the reduced party size. For whatever reason, in Dragon Quest 5, you can only have 3 characters in the party. This limits the strategies available.

There is also a lack of good spellcasting characters. Unlike in Dragon Quest 3 and 4, many spells are not obtained until after they are useful. (Notable exception: the wind spells, which are actually useful this time around because the main character gets them.)

The game is too easy. I think the only deaths I had while playing involved enemies using Sacrifice (Kamikaze) or Chance (Hocus Pocus), which are not exactly fair when enemies use them to begin with.

Another issue is with monster catching; it is too RNG dependent. Having only a 1/64 chance of recruiting monsters like the King Healer and Great Dragon is not fun, especially when many of the monsters would be interesting to use. (At least Golem is easy to get.) The system had the potential to be great, but the low monster recruit chances largely ruined it. (The original version does, however, have a weird trick (that had to be intentional) that lets you recruit monsters reliably.)

The one redeeming factor that I can think of is the option to turn off the AI, but unlike most players, I actually enjoy working with the AI in Dragon Quest 4. (When playing the DS version of that game, I actually found myself not using the Follow Orders tactic.)

From a feminist perspective (*spoilers*):

First of all, the ability to play a female character was removed. I consider this to be a major step back, and to make matters worse, the option didn't return until Dragon Quest *9*.

Furthermore, if you look at the female characters in Dragon Quest 5, they tend not to serve much function other than to be the main character's mother, wife, or daughter. Essentially, they are defined solely by their relationship to the male main character. Contrast that to the male characters. (The worst example is the children: The son becomes the legendary hero, getting unique spells and equipment and being a good physical attacker. What does the daughter get? Nothing unique; just a few offensive spells (not even including a good single-target spell) and *no* unique equipment. As far as the game and story is concerend, she might well have not even existed.)

The one playable female character who doesn't fit this description is the fairy Bella, who is only a temporary character and isn't even controllable during battle.

Contrast to Dragon Quest 4, which had more interesting female characters. There's the tomboy princess Alena (who is the only female character in the series to not get magic), as well as the Monbaraba sisters (who only need a male helper because they're both mages, and that male helper's role is de-emphasised by the game (you don't even control him during battle)). And then, there is the option to make the main character female. If you do so, half your party in Chapter 5 is female. (IIRC, the one castle consisting almost entirely of women doesn't react any differently to an all-female party, unfortunately.) As you can see, Dragon Quest 5 was a major step down in this respect.

Dead Space 3

1 and 2 are outstanding entries into the survial horror genre and some of the best console games of the past generation.

Now take what works and throw it out. Replace with dodgy human combatants and a stupid roll move that unbalances the gameplay.

Add in some douchey supporting characters and one of the lamest villians (if your villian has a pony tail then he cannot be taken seriously, especially if he looks like Pete Rose and talks like Dr. Octavius) and you have the key ingredients for an EA shitfest.

Fuck EA.
Yeah that one pissed everybody off.

Max Payne 3. The Terminator 3 of video games.

On top of a criminally short campaign which was mostly cinematics and load times, it's an unneccessary, unwanted sequel to game that had a perfect ending and I refuse to acknowledge it as canon due to Remedy not developing it.

Ooooh... I can't believe I left THAT off my list.

Castlevania 2 never existed. :P (Btw, thanks for naming it: this one certainly beats my two previous mentions!)
Jokes aside, I think it is an abomination, probably one of the worst games ever. The entire game is conceptually wrong, and other than significantly worsening the combat system and having a terrible, bleak (almost colourless and without contrasts, unlike the previous chapter) map design, it uses its non-linearity in a completely messed up and illogical way. Is there anyone who has been able to beat it without a guide, or that has never invoked a "WTF" in pain? Some villagers give random hints here and there, but even understanding where you need to do something is a chore.
I have never been able to find Vampire Killer, so I didn't play it.

More on topic: I think Final Fantasy 2 deserves a spot here. It had probably the worst (and completely broken as a system, not for bugs) character progression ever, forcing characters to use abilities to improve them. What's the difference between this and The Elder Scrolls, one may say? In TES, each action, no matter how small, will reward you with a few points in a certain skill, making everything work fine. In FF2, you need to surpass arbitrary amounts of uses, effectiveness or damages to achieve the same results, meaning that most of the time you will get no improvement at all and you will be too weak for the next dungeon.
Solution? A masochist party with low level monsters. Seriously, I was either too strong to level up or too weak to win the fight, so I had to go back to the starting area, and purposely order team mates to attack each others to hone their skills and gaining HP from their wounds.

Duke Nukem Forever

When I saw the title I automatically wanted to write Invisible War but it wasn't a bad game, it was just a huge letdown as we expected more from Deus Ex.

FINALLY!!!

Terminator 2 was anything but perfect haha.