Reboot or Re-imagineering that are drastically different from - and superior to - the original classics

[ktchong]

I hated the original XCOM: UFO Defense that came out in 1994.  (I played it in 1998.)  However, the new reboot, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and its expansion, XCOM: Enemy Within, are one of my favorite games of all time.  The new elements that were introduced in the Enemy Within expansion, MEC (Mechanized Exoskeleton Cybersuit) troopers and gene mods, which were NOT in the original classics, are actually the best parts of the already-superior reboot.    I've clocked in over 1,000 hours playing the new games (mostly Enemy Within) on Steam.

 

I hated the original Tomb Raider that came out in 1996, (which I bought and played in the same year in came out; I still remember it came in a triangle box and included a triangular talisman trinket.)  Since then I have generally hated puzzle-platformer, both in 2D and 3D.  I had never bothered with another Tomb Raider game since then.   People, who knew I hated Tomb Raider, have been telling me to try the new 2013 "re-imagineerin", which rebooted the series with a younger, totally different Lara Croft who has no connections to the old Lara Croft or any of the old Tomb Raider games. 

 

I've just recently started playing the new Tomb Raider and absolutely loving it.  It is drastically different from the Tomb Raider I remembered.  It has almost no puzzles in it, which I love. The new Tomb Raider also includes a healthy dose of RPG elements, (i.e., Lara now has HP and earns XP to select and upgrade her various skills,) which many old fans hate. Obviously, I as a RPGamer love the new changes.  Most importantly, I love how the developer has shifted the focus from puzzle and platforming to the character development and storytelling.   I am already looking forward to playing the sequel, which is actually a direct continuation of the story of the first game: Lara Croft, who in the last game was an inexperience young girl shipwrecked with friends on an island infested by pirates, criminals and cultists, and then having the learn how to survive and watch her friends die, will be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.  Which I think is a very interesting twist for a video game.  The newly release trailer focuses on character development more than action, which speaks volume for the game.

 

So, in my experience, the "reboot" and "re-imagineering" have so far been superior than the old originals.  Which is why I also think nowadays games are so much better than old ones.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2014 by ktchong

[LadyCrimson]

Loved original Tombraider, can't stand the new ones.

 

But this doesn't mean I think all games today are worse than the ones of the past, or vice versa. I just take them all one at a time...or try to. I tend to have pretty narrowed tastes, tho, even from the beginning, so it's just difficult to find games that fit them. (in terms of finding games I'll play for ages, vs. fun but quick one-offs)

[Hurlshort]

I see what you did there.  

 

[Darkpriest]

I loved original XCOM bu the new one with the LongWar mod beats it by a mile... I kind of like also the new Deus Ex. Also DIvinity OS can be put here as well, right?

Edited December 30, 2014 by Darkpriest

[ktchong]

I loved original XCOM bu the new one with the LongWar mod beats it by a mile... I kind of like also the new Deus Ex. Also DIvinity OS can be put here as well, right?

 

I tried the Long War mod, but I did not complete it.  There are a whole lot of things I liked about the mod, but a major few that I did not like.  The mid-to-late game requires more balancing.  It is still in the beta phase.   I would wait until it is finally finished and out of the beta stage.

 

Yeah, I forgot about Deus Ex: Human Revolution.  I have never played either so I can't compare.  (I own the original on GOG and the new one on Steam; yet I have never played them.)  I thought Human Revolution is a "prequel" to the original instead of a reboot/re-imagineering.  However, if Human Revolution was a reboot/re-imagineering, then it was certainly a successful one - just look at its outstanding Metacritic and GameRankings aggregate scores, (i.e., both at 90.)

 

P.S. I do not think Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a reboot of the original because they tell different stories in different time periods and feature different characters.  Reboot/re-imagineering means taking the original premise, the original storyline, the original characters, and completely revamping them.   Which is what XCOM: Enemy Unknown and the new Tomb Raider did.

Edited December 30, 2014 by ktchong

[HoonDing]

The Bard's Tale.

Baulders Gate: Dark Alliance.

Fallout 3.

[Gromnir]

sequels different and better than original?

 

bg2 were superior to bg1, but the sequel weren't a re-imagining so much as a refinement.

 

mechwarrior 2 v. mechwarrior? is odd, but there were actual quasi role-play aspects in the first mechwarrior game, but the combat were so much better in the second incarnation that we didn't mind the absence o' rp.

 

gonna go slight obscure on this...

 

battlezone.

 

 

v.

 

 

battlezone (1998) is near the top o' our list o' Best Games Nobody Played.

 

HA! Good Fun1

[ktchong]

The Bard's Tale.

 

Baulders Gate: Dark Alliance.

 

Fallout 3.

 

 

The Bard's Tale is neither a sequel or a remake.

 

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is a spinoff.  It is NOT a reboot or re-imagineering.

 

Fallout 3 is a sequel.

 

 

 

 

sequels different and better than original?

 

bg2 were superior to bg1, but the sequel weren't a re-imagining so much as a refinement.

 

There are plenty of video games whose sequels are far superior to the originals.  Way too many to be listed here.  Actually, video game sequels (especially the second game in the series) are generally - in fact, almost always - better than their predecessors.  Examples include (of the top of my head): Baldur's Gate II, Fallout 2, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2,  Halo 2, Half-Life 2, Portal 2, Diablo 2, WarCraft 2, The Witcher 2, Batman: Arkham City, Torchlight II, Borderlands 2, The Walking Dead Season 2, .... I'm sure I've missed lots of sequels.  In the video gaming world, sequels are usually at least as good as the originals if they are not straight-out superior.  (Which is why I am very excited for the next game - game no. 2! - in the new Lara Croft reboot series.)

 

It's actually very uncommon for the first sequel (i.e., number 2 in the series) to be worse than the first one.  The notable ones are: Dragon Age 2, and... I can't think of anything else!

 

Also, Baldur's Gate II is not that different from Baldur's Gate.  Baldur's Gate II used the same game engine in Baldur's Gate, and made huge improvements and enhancements over it.  (And the Enhanced Edition improved and enhanced it further.)

Edited December 30, 2014 by ktchong

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's actually very uncommon for the first sequel (i.e., number 2 in the series) to be worse than the first one.  The notable ones are: Dragon Age 2, and... I can't think of anything else!

 

 

Mass Effect 2.

 

I'm starting to notice a theme here...

[Serrano]

Human Revolution was a soft reboot, it makes significant changes to the canon of the original game while also referencing it in such a way that it's an extra story layer for those who played the original because they can infer what might happen next by comparing the two.

[Gizmo]

 

The Bard's Tale.

 

Baulders Gate: Dark Alliance.

 

Fallout 3.

 

 

The Bard's Tale is neither a sequel or a remake.

 

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is a spinoff.  It is NOT a reboot or re-imagineering.

 

Fallout 3 is a sequel.

 

sequels different and better than original?

 

bg2 were superior to bg1, but the sequel weren't a re-imagining so much as a refinement.

 

There are plenty of video games whose sequels are far superior to the originals.  Way too many to be listed here.  Actually, video game sequels (especially the second game in the series) are generally - in fact, almost always - better than their predecessors.  Examples include (of the top of my head): Baldur's Gate II, Fallout 2, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2,  Halo 2, Half-Life 2, Portal 2, Diablo 2, WarCraft 2, The Witcher 2, Batman: Arkham City, Torchlight II, Borderlands 2, The Walking Dead Season 2, .... I'm sure I've missed lots of sequels.  In the video gaming world, sequels are usually at least as good as the originals if they are not straight-out superior.  (Which is why I am very excited for the next game - game no. 2! - in the new Lara Croft reboot series.)

 

Witcher 2? Fallout 2? FO3!?

 

I don't see it. What is being valued in these that seems at all better than the in first ones? The graphics?

Of these three I would rank Fallout 2 as the best sequel to an original, but even Fo2 had serious [credibility damaging] problems with its deviations and mistakes.

 

As to the OP... How can any followup be better than the original by not competing with it?  Tomb Raider was a puzzle game; you say the reboot isn't one; so how can it be a better Tomb Raider ~with no puzzles?

Edited December 30, 2014 by Gizmo

[ktchong]

Gizmo, you are wrong.  I am not going to argue over opinions, but I know for a fact that your opinion is in the minority and most people would disagree with you.  That's all I have to say.  I am not going to waste any  of my time arguing over  YOUR opinion with you.

 

Tomb Raider 2013 is overall a better GAME than the original Tomb Raider.  And I've played both.  I know for a fact that the majority of gamers agree with me.  I know because I have seen so many user reviews on YouTube and in various forums, users after users, reviews after reviews, all kept saying how the 2013 reboot was the best game in the entire franchise and superior to any and all of the previous Tomb Raider games.  It was after watching and hearing all those positive reviews that finally convinced me to give the Tomb Raider franchise another try, even though I hated the original game and had decided that I would not play another Tomb Raider game.  People kept telling me, "hey, this new one is the best one of the series," and, "I know you said you hate Tomb Raider, but this is completely different: they threw the old Tomb Raider out the window so this is a whole new animal.  This one is really good.  You really should try it."  So I finally did.  Man, the 2013 Tomb Raider blew me away.  So I know I am in the majority here who think the 2013 reboot is a superior game to the original because I know a lot of people agree with me, (i.e., the people who convinced me in the first place.)

Edited December 30, 2014 by ktchong

[Gizmo]

Gizmo, you are wrong.  I am not going to argue over opinions, but I know for a fact that your opinion is in the minority and most people would disagree with you.  That's all I have to say.  I am not going to waste any  of my time arguing over  YOUR opinion with you.

This makes someone wrong? You post to say, "You are wrong; goodbye."?

 

If you want to claim that I am wrong, I would like to see some point of opinion, or proof. Mindless agreement does not make a person wrong ~or right.

 

I asked a simple question: What is being valued here, to say that these sequels are better? When I look at the Tomb Raider comment, I see a lament for how something is intended, and a claim that something else that adopts the name is seen as a better version of the original ~by having no relations to it. How does that work? A better Tomb Raider would have had better puzzles.

 

Fallout 2 was quite a stretch from Fallout ~aside from gameplay. It stripped away an aspect of seriousness and replaced it with misplaced lunacy, along with some welcome improvements. Fallout 2 was bigger, and had bug fixes; UI enhancements... Much of it was better ~gameplay-wise, but the good came with some bad, and came with some misconceptions of the setting.

 

Witcher 2 chucked the game en masse. What they did was turn it into an over-shoulder hack-n-slash with minigames tacked onto the RPG... The RPG was decent enough, but the gameplay sucked as a sequel ~IMO. IMO it ruined the appeal of the series, in favor of a different appeal. That doesn't make it better, that makes it different.

 

FO3... doesn't warrant much attention as a sequel. As a standalone TES variant it's superb, but it's not better than the original Fallout, it sidesteps the comparison completely, by being an almost entirely unrelated work that officially bears the series name, and some of the faction names... and it copies the use of bottle caps as an ultimate "Me Too".

New Vegas is a welcome ½ step in the right direction, but it's still a FO3 spin-off... not a much of a sequel to Fallout 2; but I don't think it's trying to be... at least NV was not a numbered game.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Gizmo

[ktchong]

Bigger.  Better.  Improved.  Enhanced.  More contents.  More fun.  That is what the first sequel (no. 2) usually does right.

 

FUN.  That is what playing game is and should be about.

 

Just because a game is more "creative" does not mean it is a good game.  There are a lot of "experimental" and "artsy" games, and they are not particularly fun to play.  They make excellent creative art projects.  But they are still bad games.

Edited December 30, 2014 by ktchong

[Fighter]

Gizmo, you are wrong.  I am not going to argue over opinions, but I know for a fact that your opinion is in the minority and most people would disagree with you.  That's all I have to say.  I am not going to waste any  of my time arguing over  YOUR opinion with you.

 

Tomb Raider 2013 is overall a better GAME than the original Tomb Raider.  And I've played both.  I know for a fact that the majority of gamers agree with me.  I know because I have seen so many user reviews on YouTube and in various forums, users after users, reviews after reviews, all kept saying how the 2013 reboot was the best game in the entire franchise and superior to any and all of the previous Tomb Raider games.  It was after watching and hearing all those positive reviews that finally convinced me to give the Tomb Raider franchise another try, even though I hated the original game and had decided that I would not play another Tomb Raider game.  People kept telling me, "hey, this new one is the best one of the series," and, "I know you said you hate Tomb Raider, but this is completely different: they threw the old Tomb Raider out the window so this is a whole new animal.  This one is really good.  You really should try it."  So I finally did.  Man, the 2013 Tomb Raider blew me away.  So I know I am in the majority here who think the 2013 reboot is a superior game to the original because I know a lot of people agree with me, (i.e., the people who convinced me in the first place.)

 

I like the new Tomb Raider too. But the "majority of players" is a bad argument. Although I'm not sure if you're not trolling...

[Gizmo]

Bigger.  Better.  Improved.  Enhanced.  More contents.  More fun.  That is what the first sequel (no. 2) usually does right.

 

FUN.  That is what playing game is and should be about.

 

Just because a game is more "creative" does not mean it is a good game.  There are a lot of "experimental" and "artsy" games, and they are not particularly fun to play.  They make excellent creative art projects.  But they are still bad games.

Fun is a subjective thing, and there is such a thing as the wrong kind in context. A game is not always an improvement for simply being fun. FO3 can be fun, but it's not the kind of fun I would look for from the Fallout series; and it's depressing that this kind of fun has replaced what the series traditionally offered. It's the same thing with Witcher IMO. Tomb Raider too, if that's its future.

 

To illustrate it differently: Books can be fun, but a book like the Fountainhead is no more an improvement on Hitchiker's Guide, than the reverse, and if the style of one replaced the other in future installments... that could be both fun, and very sad at the same time. It's something I would actually read, but wish didn't exist.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Gizmo

[pmp10]

Just because a game is more "creative" does not mean it is a good game.  There are a lot of "experimental" and "artsy" games, and they are not particularly fun to play.  They make excellent creative art projects.  But they are still bad games.

There is no need to pull 'creative' card to find holes in your argument.

Original Tomb Rider was very successful and serious case can be made that it was both better received and more profitable than the reboot.

[ktchong]

BTW, I did not say Fallout 3 was better than 2.  I said 2 was better than 1.  I would not know if 3 was better than 1 and 2 because I have never played 3, (nor New Vegas.)

 

Fallout 2 was buggy as hell (just like the first one.)  Fallout 2 bugged out on me, (i.e., everything I put in the car trunk disappeared, including quest items;  I did not find out until after I had overridden all my older saved files with bugged ones, so I had no way of going back to an earlier safe point.)  When that happened, I was already in mid-to-late game.  So I had no time nor patience to restart from the beginning.  So I have never completed Fallout 2.  However, I played Fallout 2 long enough to know it was better than Fallout 1.  Fallout 1 was also buggy as hell.  However, Fallout 1 was a very short game.  So I was able to quickly run through and finish Fallout 1 before any major bug broke my game.    However, Fallout 1's short length and lack of contents also left me very unsatisfied at the end.   The main problems with Fallout 2 were: (a) it was buggy, it had A LOT of bugs, and; (b) it was a long game.  So Fallout 2 had too many points at which any of its numerous bugs could break the game.

 

After Fallout 2, the series generally left a bad taste in my mouth.  I know Fallout 3 was made by a different developer, but Bethesda's reputation was as bad as Black Isle/Trokia/Obdisian (in terms of releasing very buggy games; I have some horror stories with Daggerfall as well.)  I do own Fallout 3 and New Vegas on Steam.  I bought them  when they were on sales, (as well as all of the Elder Scroll games.)  Those games are in my library but I have NOT touched any of them: i.e., they are not high priority.  I do plan to get to Fallout 3 and New Vegas.  However, right now I am playing Tomb Raider, and I have about 200 to 300 games on Steam and another 170 on GOG, (not counting those that I have "hidden" from my main library because I have no intention of playing them, ever; like miscellaneous games that I grabbed from Humble Bundles.)

 

Now that it has come up, here is something completely off-topic and an honest advice from a consumer.  Quality matters.  Product stability matters.  Reputation matters.  If a developer has a good reputation for releasing stable products, I'd buy their products within a year (if the products appeal to me.)  A good example is CD Projekt, who has solid reputation for quality control.  CD Projekt is also committed to fully patching their games long after release: they would keep patching and improving their products until the products are in excellent if not perfect condition, even years after the initial product release.  (Unlike many other developers who would put out one or two patches, then just move on to other projects and abandon a game without completely ironing out all the bugs.)  Currently CD Projekt is the only developer I would pre-order from.  (I would also pre-order from Blizzard if they were making anything I would be interesting in playing; Blizzard has not made anything I want to play for a long time.  BUT, I admire their dedication to excellence in quality, product stability, and long-term product support.)  On the other hand, if a developer has a reputation of releasing buggy products, I may still buy their games if the genre appeals to me -- but not before all the patches (including fan-made patches) are already released.  I am certainly not touching their games before then.  Which means I would never pay full retail price or pre-order price for their products.  Often, by the time everything is fixed, I have already moved on to other games.

 

Oh, another thing, a reason why I think games nowadays  are way, way better and so far ahead of old games: product stability and quality.  Buggy games used to be the way of life back in the 1980s and 1990s, even the early 2000s.   Nowadays games are so much less buggy on release day.  Some are still buggy but at least we get day-1 patch to fix the major bugs.  There are a few exceptions like Bethesda that has been able to get away with releasing one buggy game after another.   Even Obsidian has cleaned up their act and, finally, started to release games that are not completely buggy and broken on release day, (i.e., Dungeon Siege III, South Park.)

Edited December 30, 2014 by ktchong

[Humanoid]

Fallout 2's ability to push companions out of the way alone makes it the superior game to its predecessor.

[Gizmo]

Fallout 2's ability to push companions out of the way alone makes it the superior game to its predecessor.

It's even better when you realize that it spends their APs to do it.

But That alone does not make it a better sequel IMO.

 

*Truth be told, if I could only pick one Fallout game, it would be Fallout 2; I prefer Fallout... but it's short, and Fallout 2 has fixes that Fallout needed from day 1.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Gizmo

[Enoch]

Pac-Man < Ms. Pac-Man

[AwesomeOcelot]

I bought Tomb Raider ('96) on release and that's still one of my favourite games, one of the best puzzle platformers ever made, it had a remake, which was great at capturing the aestetic and kept a lot of the puzzles, but was buggy, QTE infested, and added stupid elements like Lara's remorse at using her guns to defend herself. It also had a '13 reboot that's a QTE infested generic 3rd person shooter, where Lara's an inexperienced survivalist / killing machine. Real Tomb Raider games are still being released in the form of the "Lara Croft and the" series.

 

XCOM '94 had a lot more gameplay elements and freedom, XCOM '12 is more focused but much less complex. XCOM '12 has problems with angles and its encounter system is bad, XCOM '94 is unforgiving, to the point where it's not fun. XCOM '12 without the expansion isn't a good game, it's lacking in content, too simple and too repetitive.

 

Games I played in the 90's were far less buggy than modern games, requiring far fewer patches. Modern games are far more complex, in terms of graphics, that's where much of the problems come from but they're simpler in terms of gameplay.

[Oerwinde]

Great sequels: Civ 4, FF 6, Assassins Creed 2

Great Reboots: Xcom: Enemy Unknown, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

Great Remakes: The AGD versions of the Kings Quest and Quest for Glory games.

[Elerond]

Original Dune game was not so great combination of adventure and strategy game, where Dune 2 was cult classic RTS game pioneer and it was one of the best games during it time. 

[marelooke]

I thought Tomb Raider 2013 was an enjoyable game (too much annoying QTEs for any rating higher than "enjoyable"), but a terrible Tomb Raider game. It felt more like what I'd expect from an Indiana Jones game than a Tomb Raider.