• The forums' spoiler embargo for all content from Pokémon Legends: Z-A's Mega Dimension DLC has been lifted! Feel free to talk about the new content from the expansion across the forums without the need of spoiler tabs!

    Please note that this lifted embargo only applies for the forums, and may still be in effect on other Bulbagarden sites.

Would you agree the second verion of spinoff titles are always better?

That's what it's supposed to be. (?)

Each sequel is supposed to build onto the first in practically every way, so yes, they usually are better, like they should be.
 
I guess so. Guardian signs wasn't so bad, but I wouldn't play it again... however, Shadows of Almia is worth another epic playtime XDD

Same goes to the dungeon series.
 
From what I see, sequels to spin-off titles in Pokemon receive lower scores by the critics (IGN gave Explorers of Sky an even lower score than the previous two versions). So no, the second versions aren't better.
 
Ghetsis-Dennis said:
From what I see, sequels to spin-off titles in Pokemon receive lower scores by the critics (IGN gave Explorers of Sky an even lower score than the previous two versions). So no, the second versions aren't better.
Click to expand...

Wait, did you just mention IGN and used them (and other critics) to justify improvements over predecessors via THEIR scoring in the same sentence?

Err... Sorry about that. Personal Pet-Peeve. That aside, while it's a matter of preference overall, if we sit and take PMD 1 from start middle and finish and mechanics involved then jump to 2 (putting 2.5[Sky] aside)... Then definitely from the replay, fun factor and personal emotional investment angle.

Hmm... I never played the first Ranger but PMD2 was a blast if not comedy gold. Only real flaw was only one save file... Haven't picked up Ranger 3 out of disinterest, they ever answer that problem?
 
Last edited:
What exactly was the second version of Ranger? They were all sequels to one another.
Ghetsis-Dennis said:
From what I see, sequels to spin-off titles in Pokemon receive lower scores by the critics (IGN gave Explorers of Sky an even lower score than the previous two versions). So no, the second versions aren't better.
Click to expand...
Second versions are by far better in most cases, because they are upgraded from the originals.

The reason these updated versions tend to do worse compared to the originals in these ratings is because these updates are hardly worth paying full price for the same game (kind of like the remake/VC situation we have on these forums once you take graphics aside), especially so shortly after the original's release.

However, if you are a fan who has not bought the original or the updated version, then it is well worth it to buy the updated game. I had not played MD:Explorers of Darkness/Time. The difference between those games and Sky are minimal within the game plot, and only add six extra episodes to further the story amongst other features. Had I played Time/Darkness, Sky is hardly worth a revisit, given I was not a die-hard fan of PMD (compared to main series games). However, given that I had not bought it, Sky was the better investment as I would be playing Time/Darkness's story, plus a little extra.

It really wouldn't hurt to not look at game scores at face value :/
 
Please note: The thread is from 14 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom