Something i can't understand

Zephryl wrote:
I really do wish sequels were judged more harshly though... A Sequel should by all rights, do every single thing better than the original. It's why I don't like it when games like COD make an entirely new game using stuff that they could've added as DLC to their previous game...

No. No more DLC. A sequel does not have to surpass the original in any way. This is the kind of thinking that spawned the the last two Mass Effect games. Because of the industry's obsession with making everything better, they turned one of the best Sci-fi RPGs on the market into a glorified michael bay film.

The only purpose of a sequel is to progress the story.

You don't invent a new kind of paper every time you write a new book, but if a new kind of paper is created while you're writing it, you'll use it when it's time to hit the presses.

As long as it stays true to its origins, I feel that's more important that whether or not it's "better." Take Assassin's Creed for instance. 2 just happened to be better and remain true to itself, but the closer you get to 3 the more the games become adventure, dungeon, and sometimes questing games and as they do they lose that "assassin" feel. By the time 3 comes along it's just a jumbled mess.

I do NOT want to see the same happen to the Soul series.