I'm in, thank you +1. ;)

I'm in!

Sequels can sometimes be better. But remakes usually are not! Except cases such as ICO HD remake where the devs didn't change the base game but made some amazing touch to the graphics

As per usual please count me in for this week's round as well so thanks again the Sigil and Sachys. As far as sequels, remakes and reboots are concerned there are some good examples like many have posted, but the bad far outweighs the good in my opinion we could definitely use more original ideas for both games and movies. Right the plague of sequelitis has taken over both video games and hollywood, just look at the release schedule this year. I am always more excited for original movies more then sequels like the upcoming "Interstellar" or the video games like "Watch Dogs" and "Murdered: Soul Suspect"

Thank you! Once more you give out games.
I'm in.

Carmaggedon 2. So much better than the 1st one. I'm still playing it from time to time.

In, thank you.
As for topic of the discussion, in my opition squels are logic and understandable way for developers and publishers to follow. It is easier, safer and cheaper to built on establised brand, than bulid something new from ground up. I am ok with them as long as they are not simple season "cash ins" (eg Sport series from EA).Quite often sequel gives developers chance to enrich gameplay but with each new part it is harder to balance new elements (that you need to bring to keep the experience fresh) with old formula (so that game feels true the the "roots" and part of series).

Thank you! In & +1! :D

and as for the question: Is purely circumstantial :)

I am in, thanks Sachys and The Sigil!

I think it varies game-to-game. Sometimes I prefer the original, sometimes I prefer sequels. I guess it all depends on whether or not I like the 'improvements' :).

Please re-read the entry conditions carefully - there's something you've missed! ;)

Count me in. Thanks Sachys.

Count me in.

As for sequels - I pretty much consider Thief 2 > Thief since their's a bigger focus on thieving (Thief occasionally felt like it was full of undead and spiders and crap simply because the creators were afraid to escape the usual fantasy stuff that was so popular at the time).

Fallout 2 I consider better than Fallout depending on mood swings - the 1st has stronger plot (a lot stronger), the 2nd is more fun to play.

Thank you!

I'm in!!! Thanks for all the giveaways!!!

Wheeling into this land of goodness! :D

I'm in!

Sequels are perfect, if they were to provide needed continuity and excitement from where the journey has last left off. Despite criticisms over Bioware's games, they do that very well. Carrying over your characters and watching them change according to the passage of time.

Remakes are worth it if it enhances a game's enjoyment, and also bring with it a new dimension.

This may be a niggly deal, but in Tropico reloaded, the first two Tropicos of the series, the animations were pretty basic in a sense, that your citizens mostly just wander the island aimlessly, whilst the game happens in the background. However, in Tropico 4, for example, you could now see your citizens doing stuff, in a sims-like fashion, which makes things more fun overall.

Even small things like that, I could say.

Sequels are sometimes an excellent way to subvert the expectations of an audience. I really like those types of sequels. People mentioned Monkey Island 2, and I can imagine somebody doesn't like it because of the ending, but that's why I like it. It's a very challenging, idea, isn't it? It's up to you to decide what it means, but it ends up bringing about an entirely different context for the original depending on how you interpret. Other left-field sequels I appreciate include Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 2 (especially this one! What a subversive game!) and Ultima IV, which of you think about it was a very disruptive sequel that launched the series down a new and ultimately more satisfying direction. Sometimes you get cases like Resident Evil 4 were people love the sequel, but don't necessarily like where it's sequels went with the games.

It is, however, a pity when you get games like Ultima IX or King's Quest VIII, because it's such a waste of time of perhaps talented programmers and designers who could have been devoting their years of work to something better. That's always a shame.

As for sequels being better than the originals, it happens all the time. The Hand of Fate is so much better than any other Kyrandia title, it's ridiculous. Might & Magic II is such a humongous improvement on Might & Magic, the only possible debate for me is that the sequel is maybe too crazy and the original is an originator, so there's always some charm in that. I think everyone is happy that Devil May Cry 3 happened and didn't leave the series withered away at 2. It's not a very popular opinion, I know, but if you ask me Baldur's Gate is an exceedingly mediocre RPG that only really found popularity because it had a well thought-out, progressive engine, but the design was really grating and flabby in a lot of places. I've not met many people who like the original better than the sequel.

Reboots and remakes, on the other hand, would be made much better if there wasn't the issue of copyright. If properties' IP rights died sooner and people could reinterpret the stories in the their own way, like people making different versions of Hamlet or Robin Hood, putting them into the discourse of public legend, I'd be much more enthusiastic. As it sounds now, the issue of money and ownership makes everything such a walled garden that these are often not very promising endeavors. Just imagining what would have happened if fairy tales had been birthed in the days of intellectual property rights makes me frowny.

When it comes to games though because there is the issue of technology, remakes tend to be a fun way to get a "what-if" scenario about the game. I prefer two things: 1) a design team close in make-up to the original to handle it and 2) them to go hog wild with ideas for how they want the remake to be. The original will ALWAYS be there. If it's famous enough, there's very little chance it will fade into history, with the remake being the only thing that survives. Therefore I prefer it when creators do something different with remakes.

I know this is primarily a PC gaming forum and I did enjoy Sierra's remakes, as well as the AGD versions (especially the King's Quest II remake, that was incredible), but my favorites are things like Wild Arms: Alter Code F or New Etrian Odyssey (Shin Sekaiju no Meikyuu) where the remakes are these complete re-envisioning based on the original ideas. I prefer, in this case, for the original to be included with the remake, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

I'm in, thanks for the giveaway!

I think game sequels are quite often better, but movie sequels are generally worse. Reboots/remakes are a mixed bag. I did like Batman Begins, and also the Tomb Raider reboot from last year. But enough with all the superhero reboots/remake movies.

My favorite game was a sequel (and far superior to the original which was far smaller in scope) > Star Control 2.

I'm in.
I can think of two off the top of my head that were better.
Evil Dead 2 (which was basically a remake of 1 with a little bit more of a budget)
John Carpenter's The Thing