We are the few, the proud...

old school...
Ikari Warriors is a classic.
Ikari Warriors 2 is a supercalifragialistic piece of dog sh&t.
that is all.

Civ 1 had greater atmosphere. Little things like animated "live" leaders (they were able to demonstrate some emotions -- joy, anger, etc.), soldiers marching in the city when you take over it, beautiful intro, national anthems, researchers presenting to you new technologies, and so on. Civ 2 killed most of these little things, and they used ugly standard Windows widgets too much, further spoiling the atmosphere.

You might have misunderstood the thread title, Lionel is actually looking for original games that are better than their sequels, not the other way around. But I nearly fell into that trap myself; I'm kind of surprised there isn't more confusion. ;)


Yes, but then again, it could already be considered a sequel to the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade game (unless you don't count movie adaptations).

Good call. The inventory system sucked but overall it's a much better game than 2 or 3, especially in the realm of story and presentation.

If we want to count all IJ game - we'll have to count platformer movie adaptations (far inferior to Last Crusade adventure).
I just thought about continuity between Fate of Atlantis and Infernal Machine and those as a mini-series. Infernal Machine was still far better than Emperor's Tomb.

True, but Last Crusade and Fate of Atlantis are the only two point-and-click adventures, done by the same company, in the same style and during the same period, so it's different than comparing it to platformers. Fate of Atlantis is also referred to as Indy 4, due to being a sequel of sorts to both the three movies and Lucasfilm's own Indy 3 game. Anyway, I see your point, I didn't know the later games were spiritual sequels to Fate of Atlantis and tried to maintain continuity.

The real SMB 2 wasn't much cop, either. I actually prefer the one we got.

I found Red Faction 2 very campy and funny. I could listen to the despot's raving on the menu screen for hours.

Majesty! Sequel was disappointing...

Sophia is the main female protagonist in Infernal Machine.
Emperor's Tomb - as far as I played it - doesn't try to maintain the continuity - here I'm not sure as I only played the demo and didn't enjoy it enough to buy the whole thing.

Well I like the infinite sprint, so its not really that bad.

Also at least it does not regenerate health that fast it takes awhile to heal on your own so at least medics are not completely useless.

As for unlocks, Battlefield 2 was the first game to feature unlocks, but I understand that there is more unlocks in Battlefield 3 than in 2, but at least Battlefield 3 has no Killstreaks, I would not stand someone calling supply drops or 'shudders' RC-XDs

I agree with you, that the Pokemon from generation 2+ where in like 70% just copies of the old 150 (same type, visuals also kinda similiar, same attacks) the gameplay changes which came with the 3rd generation are really good for the game. Every pokemon get 1 or 2 passive traits they can have which influence the battle (e.g. double INT when its raining or double crit chance). Some of the Pokemon that were kinda unique also got unique traits that no other pokemon have, what increased the "unique-ity" of many pokemon.
Also every Pokemon got 1 of 25 possible Characteristics, e.g. "sassy, naughty, jolly, hasty" etc. Every of that increased one stat gain by 10% and decreased another stat gain by 10%. The battle-mechanics with the stats really got more focused by this and most of the times, 2 "same" pokemon like a bulbsaur A and bulbsaur B were NOT the same. The one maybe had more defense, the other one was faster.
This made the breeding of pokemon more important, because the characteristics got to the baby-pokemon with a big percentage.
Another aspect is, that attack now are divided into physical attacks and special attacks(there is also defend and special defend as attributes), and there are so much more attacks in the newer games. I replayed the old pokemon a few month ago and its really strange that most of the pokemon only can learn like 5-6 attacks and most of the attacks just do damage.

I understand your nostalgic feeling towards pokemon, but gameplay wise the newer pokemon titles are totally worth their price and are also gameplay-wise much better than the old ones - more strategic, more options, more individual pokemons

Sorry for that long post, but as a pokemon fan, i had to point out my opinion here :)

I can kind of understand where you're coming from. I looked at the game less as a stat-based RPG game, so the improvements to the combat didn't really appeal to me. The simplicity of the original was really its strong suit for me—there were X many normal pokemon, and a couple more special ones. No frills, just good old straightforward gameboy entertainment. Now I see people talking about "legendary" pokemon as though each new game introduces new ones (they do, don't they?), and it kind of devalues the specialness of the special ones. It's specialness inflation, I tell you. "Oh, you're from the moon and shoot world-destroying lasers out of your eyes? Yeah, that's kind of like that other pokemon I have. Cool, I guess."

Maybe I'm just old and angry that I caught them all and then they made more. That's like chasing a dollar bill on a string, and totally a dick move.