Do videogame sequels automatically make a game great?

I�m pretty sure this is noticeable by many gamers, but I don�t hear much talk about it. Since I�m writing a blog about this, I�m just going to ask anyway, �Have anyone notice that most if not all videogame sequels of critically acclaim games are put on a high pedestal? I mean, maybe many sequels deserve the best ratings; I don�t know, but I have noticed that many sequels seem to get near perfect scores and I�m starting to think because the first game was awesome. I think many sequels ride the coat tail of its predecessors and because the first game of its kind did great, that automatically makes the sequel great too as long as if it follows the same formula.

Some games are exception to the rules

There are some videogame sequels that may be exception to the rules. Some videogame sequels may be legitimately great because of the vast improvements in all areas of game play and presentation. For example, though I have never played the franchise, Uncharted 2 was a huge leap in presentation and game play over the first one, so I have heard from many fans of the series. I can personally say that Batman Arkham city was a huge leap in game play and presentation over the first one. To keep in mind that is my opinion and I�m pretty sure there are some that disagree. I can see the first sequel to a game to be legitimately great if the game play was vastly improved, but it seems like every sequel afterwards would be along for the gravy ride. Back to the Uncharted franchise, many would agree that Uncharted 2 improved in many ways over the first one such in the way Sonic 2 improved greatly over Sonic 1. However many Uncharted fans may feel that the third game didn�t improve much over the second one. It doesn�t mean the fans didn�t like the game, but many could think Uncharted 3 may have received the high praise because it was put on a high pedestal place by Uncharted 2. The many gamers in my school�s campus felt that way about Uncharted 3 and it really got me thinking do critics give a high praise to videogame sequels because the first or second game did great?

Analyzing one game in particular

Analyze the Call of Duty franchise for a minute. The franchise has always done great from the beginning, but it wasn�t until the first Modern Warfare when the franchise took a leap into a new direction. It seems like to me every since COD:MW2 the COD games seem to get near perfect scores from many game publications, despite to me that Activation slap on some new maps and a new story and call it a new experience. To me every COD game ever since Modern Warfare 2 didn�t seem to change too much in game play maybe some tweaking of the engine, yet it gets near perfect scores. I wonder do critics really take the time to analyze these games sequels before they review it.

Now unlike my other blogs in which I rant, this one is not so much as rant as it�s just a blog to put a certain topic on notice. I personally don�t care about many sequels getting high praise, but I did wanted to put such a topic on notice because many gamers seem to trip when a sequel from a critically acclaim game gets an 8 out of 10. Now 5 to 10 years ago, in 8 out of 10 seem to be a great score to many, who felt a great game deserved it. Now its seems like if games like Assassin�s Creed, Gears of War, Call of Duty and many other big franchise get an 8 or lower, World War 3 will happen on the internet. Though I don�t take the Spike VGA awards seriously, I find it stupid to nominate the Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword as one of the top picks for �Game of the Year.� Now the game hasn�t came out yet, WTF!? How about waiting until the fans get a hold of it and play it and let them decide should it be nominated. I guess they figured since its Zelda, it�s automatically a good game. Oh well, just putting it out there.

---

LOOK WHO CAME:

grandmaster   

Elsa   1