Why is it that after the honeymoon phase is over...

Why is it that after the honeymoon phase is over, so many critically aclaimed sequels don't hold up as well as the first entries in their respective series?

Attached: first was better.png (972x956, 898K)

Usually because these games decides to follow a different draft than the original draft for said sequel, hence usually seems shitty.

Portal literally isn't better than Portal 2 in any way

his is portal 1 supposed to be better than portal 2

Portal is concise and original

>Doesn't have Wheatley making shitty jokes that ruin the tone of the game.
>Plot is understated, not hamfisted like 2.
Yeah, Portal 1 is better.

AGreed for 1 and 2, but Portal 2 is better than portal 1 in every measurable way, and in the intangible ways such as fun and story and atmosphere/world.

The single-player campaign in 1 is better than 2, but when you take 2's co-op mode into consideration they're equal.

Portal 1 atmosphere/tone and storytelling >>>>>>>>>>> Portal 2 atmosphere/tone and storytelling.

Portal 1 doesn't hold up in any regard but its tone.
Portal 2 has built-in mapmaking support and co-op.

Half-Life 2 is miles better than Half-Life, though

you're a nostalgia fag

Also 2 drastically lowering the bar for entry to custom tests. The infinite testing thing they added that just loops through workshop maps forever is great.

street fighter 2 is miles better than the original street fighter

Attached: 1410736562608.png (861x889, 85.67K)

World War 1 > World War 2

learn to read

Don’t agree with Portal or HL2 (while HL2 has some too tech-demoy puzzles in it that slow the pace, at least its pacing holds up better until the end than HL1 does), but at least with RDR2 we got a huge paradigm shift in the game design and its main focuses, making it a very different game than its predecessor and not necessarily in a good sense.

I mean, RDR1 was more like GTA with horses, faster paced and less intricate game mechanics, while RDR2 went all in with little immersive details and focus on storytelling at the cost of the pacing of the game. As result, RDR2 *is* vastly superior in the sense of storytelling and dialogue, with tons of focus on the gangs inside dynamics, but it’s also very bogged down with ”atmospheric” super-scripted missions that are a real chore to replay and feature rather little freeform gameplay. In contrast, RDR1 has those kind of missions mostly just in the beginning and in its final hours. While I see what they were going for, I feel that the price we need to play on gameplay flow is too big to pay.

i did, you're still a faggot

Absolutely not.

also fuck the disgusting green grass that is everywhere in RDR2

Honestly, none of those games hold up for me anymore, not even the first ones. It's amazing what American gamers used to put up with back then.

That's just wrong. It's not the completely awful game some contrarians make it out to be, but HL2 isn't as good as HL1 when you look at both games objectively.

This WW1 is kino art house and WW2 is blockbust action shlock

I played RDR2 first and then the original game. The difference was huge. RDR2 is so much more immersive and detailed in pretty much every way. RDR2 has actual characters instead of the one-dimensional joke characters you encounter in the original, the story is more interesting, it has some really cool cinematic moments, it's much less gamey than the original (for instance you can only have so many weapons on you and they are all visible on the character model instead of having magic pockets), it has actual custumisation, there is much more going on in the open world instead of just the empty wastelands of the original. I could go on and on. I love the original game too, but saying it's better than the sequel is just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Attached: 1586415476833.png (572x572, 336.47K)

europoor's law

because of the honeymoon phase and because you actually see the game for what it is as you progress in the game.

portal 2 IS better though

Peak Yas Forums hot take

>I played RDR2 first and then the original game.
Opinion discarded.

Red dead revolver is the patricians choice of red dead games.

Why are so many people quick to sing a game's praises and claim it's better than what came before when the honeymoon phase is known to be a thing?

>RDR better than RDR2
naw Arthur has a really nice ass, the RDR protag can't compete

Most of the time I would agree as a lot of sequels are often cash ins without the innovation of the first. But your examples are trash. RDR2 and HL2 are objectively better than their predecessors. I can't remember the difference between Portal 1 and 2 so won't comment there.

you silly boy, the patrician choice is a threesome with both of them

WW2 had much more iconic villains, but at the same time they were comically evil compared to the more believable villains of the first war. The sequel also has much higher stakes with the atom bomb arc and the genocides.

It's the tryhard hipster choice.

The difference between Portal 1 and 2 is is that 2 is much better.

I'll take your word for it, played them so long ago I can't remember. Had fun with both though

it has more gameplay mechanics at the expense of tone and story

Portal 2 is a shitty Pixar film in vidya form. The goo puzzles are fun though.