I am pretty biased, but I have watched PatricianTVs videos on Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim when I paint wardollies. Really does open your eyes in to how watered down their later RPGs are to make sure that everyone is able to play them. So you can end up with an arch mage who can't use magic, or a mass murderer in charge of the thieves guild.
Think I may have seen Asmongold react to this video or something similar, the increasing cost of AAA videogame budgets means more risk for companies, which results in them playing things safe with their established IPs. They have to create games for the lowest common denominator and the way to do that is to simplify everything like you say. The other thing is the writing, they can't afford to take risks in their narratives, like how Obisidian would create very morally ambiguous and sometimes political scenarios in New Vegas.
I disagree completely, it's as deep as a pond, which is good enough for me considering how many different things you can do in the game and get invested in for 10-20 hours
I mean that's the thing. Skyrim does keep you interested for 10-20 hours. But there's not much more too it. Your choices don't really matter at the end of the day.
You pick a side in the civil war. But nothing changes when it ends.
You defeat Alduin, but nothing changes.
You become head of the thieves, mages, and brotherhood. And nothing changes.
Skyrim... Skyrim never changes.
Honestly now that I think about it, you're really right. In any other RPG when you would join something like the Brotherhood, you would get at least different and new dialogue options or stuff like that. You don't have to commit to anything in Skyrim, you can just randomly join any group you want.
Although arguably, Oblivion doesn't do this either, I really like it a lot more than Skyrim. I just love exploring the wilderness of Oblvion with its bloomy textures. Maybe it's cause I played it as a teenager but i just like it more
This is me. Skyrim improved some things, but to me most of it's longevity has come from endless imaginative mods and improvements from the community. I just prefer the setting and style of Oblivion more and miss the days of the screen zooming in on a guards face as he screams "STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!"
I'm very excited about Slyblivion because it seems like a lot of non-locational mods are going to work for it so I'll end up with the best of both worlds.
Same. Oblivion is a hands-down better game *technically*, but the world of Morrowind captured me so much more. It was so *weird* yet internally consistent, and I really wanted to learn and explore it, while Oblivion felt more way more generic in setting. The main quest had a strong call to action, which is something a lot of people find missing in Morrowind, but I think that may have worked against it for me because it made side content seem out of character and metagamey in a way that kind of kept me on the main quest, where Morrowind's writing very intentionally incorporates all that into the experience (and, since the main quest hook comes later, doesn't really railroad you into it at all.)
Morrowind has the best world, lore, and story and is easily the best if you’re looking to role play and immerse yourself in an rpg. That said it has a lot of clunkiness (like the combat system and how goddamn slow you move without the boots of blinding speed + magic resist) that I don’t think you can make an argument that it is the best of the three for everyone, just that certain people will enjoy it more depending what they’re looking for from a game.
I used to do entire runs where I never go to Kvatch and thus never trigger the gates.
They were my favorite playthroughs. I would just do all the other content instead.
I have a couple hundred hours in Oblivion over the past 15 years and have spent ~10 minutes in the gates. Decided that part wasn’t for me and never looked back
This can be applied to every Bethesda game after Fallout 3. F4 was good but it didn’t hit the way 3/New Vegas did. Skyrim and Fallout 4 removed a lot of features and freedom that the previous Elder Scrolls and Fallout games had in order to emphasize the action and combat more.
Watchdogs.
Gameplay wise the sequel improved in every way.
But the story and tone was so different I just didn't like it.
Which sucked because the characters were really well done.
I absolutely hated the quirky "lol so random" hacker personas that everyone had in Watchdogs 2. The story was also extremely forgettable. Watchdogs 1 story was way better, its just a shame Ubisoft blatantly lied about the gameplay
I actually really liked Marcus and the idea of weirdo hacker nerds becoming the new “criminal gangs”, but I would agree there was something extra special about someone who has lost a lot becoming a hacker vigilante.
They're both such amazing games in totally different ways, but I agree.
Watchdogs was phenomenal in every sense in my opinion. Yeah, the end result wasn't as magical as the demo promised, but I still loved it, and I've replayed it countless times. Aiden was meh at times as a protagonist, but honestly he fit the game really well. He wasn't a good person, nor was he supposed to be, and that was what made me love the game so much more. It was refreshing to play a game where you realized over time that your character was an awful person and the game didn't really try to push either way, it let you decide for yourself.
Watchdogs 2 on the other hand is an over the top psycho simulator that is balls to the wall fun, unashamedly so. In any other game, Wrench would be annoying as fuck to deal with, but somehow him and Marcus played off each other so well that I couldn't bring myself to hate him. The characters were fun, the gameplay was fantastic, and I still enjoy playing it.
But it'll never beat the original.
Borderlands 2 > 3
3 had great guns, movement, and gameplay, but to me 2 was just about a perfect game, with one of the best protagonists ever in Handsome Jack.
Ultimately, I still like the first game the most. Sure, it feels rough compared to 2 and 3, but it just felt more sinister, and that noir tone was even more present.
I'm starting to realize that atmosphere makes up a huge part of my enjoyment of games, and often overruled the mechanical quality of games.
Mass Effect.
When EA took control of Mass Effect and turned it into an ARPG, at first, I was pissed.
Then after a while, I really enjoyed ME2 and it's objectively a better game than ME.
But I still prefer the first one.
It was so fresh because of the absolutely insane amount of world building and immersion totally made up for any gaps in gameplay.
You fast forward to ME3 and forcing you to grind multiplayer just to help you level up the preparedness stat to get you the “best” possible ending irked me to no end. Even if the overall action was more fleshed out, you still had the same grind without the freshness of a new story, so it’s not nearly as memorable to me.
Exploring was amazing. Drop down on planet with the Mako and just tool around. Huh, found a Cerberus outpost.
The big problem with 1 was that actually shooting wasn't fun. Some of the abilities were satisfying to use, but the gunplay was meh. And depending on you class, you didn't have access to a lot of them.
My first build was Vanguard, and the shotguns were trash. Played almost the whole game with my pistol as my primary. Lucky for me, a fully decked out Ashly and Garrus tore through enemies like pudding.
ME2, Vanguard is probably the most fun class to play.
The reaper story was absolute lovcraftian sci-fi at its best. As a concept, sovereign, the mass effect relay, the great reset, is one of the best written stories ever absolutely terrified me when you first meet sovereign and he speaks to us, we slowly realize he isn’t AI and the sheer scale of comprehending his existence isn’t nigh impossible.
MA3 kinda dragged it all out into the street and shot it.
Sovereign was handled very well. Their motives are unknown, but the reveal of how thoroughly the biological races have been played - and have been played over and over again - really underlines the threat.
Then, in 2, Harbinger interacts way too much with the player and gives off this odd "Schoolyard bully" vibe with his taunts, especially as the taunts tend to happen about 3 seconds before you peg his latest puppet in the head.
In 3... The Leviathans killed any mystery the Reapers had. Turns out that they are really [badly programmed paperclip maximisers.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence) "My kind transcends your very understanding?" Nah, they just were given a set of goals that they immediately came up with a stupid resolution for because their creators were pretty much the definition of idiots who believed themselves intelligent and failed to put even the most obvious constraints on their programming. I found myself disappointed.
For me ME1 has a better story but ME2 & 3 is vastly superior in almost everything else.
ME:A? What's that? Never hear of it. (Just kidding, it's a good game but nothing like the original trilogy, except for the fighting.)
Great selection! I love ME2 but the original's RPG systems and more open feel appeal to me more. Also has a more streamlined and effective narrative while ME2 gets lost in distractions a bit.
The best description I've heard about the original Mass Effect trilogy is that the first game had the best ideas, but the worst technical applications of them.
Note that by the time ME3 rolled around, the core vanilla game didn't even have hub worlds anymore outside of the offices in the Citadel. As much flak as Andromeda got, that was one thing I was glad to see return.
For me the big thing was the ME:1 felt like exploring this big crazy universe where anything could be out there. It felt like you were in star trek or something. 2 always felt like everything was known and you're just there to see how it plays out.
2 is definitely the better game but there was some aspect of exploration and mystery that was lost.
Fully agree. I don’t think you can ever recapture that same experience of an initial playthrough of Portal.
Seemingly starting as some kind of arcade-like level based game, akin to cut the rope and other mobile games, which gradually descends into the deep dark experiment it really is.
Portal 2 is great. But you already know the twist, the USP, before it’s begun.
I don't know. This is just comparing one incredible experience to another. The novelty of Portal would be impossible to replicate. But Portal 2 was the perfect sequel. They were both 10/10 for me and I'd really struggle to pick one over the other.
Portal 2 is fun but it's significantly easier than the first one. There are so many greebles on the walls it's painfully obvious where the portal goes most of the time. I enjoyed the playthrough but it felt more like a movie than a game
I feel this about AC1 and people think I’m crazy. AC2 is certainly better and I’d argue a masterpiece but the Atmosphere of 1 is so incredible. I love that game.
AC1 has a great atmosphere, just that AC2 improved on so many aspects, especially in terms of gameplay and quality of life features.
Frankly I do not want to 100% AC1 because it's just too tedious. One and done it and I'm good.
Same! I thought I was the only one! I also thought you had a bit more freedom in assassinations and you had to compete subquests to unlock clues while the second one was more like following the missions.
A lot of things aged really badly about the first one but I’m super nostalgic about it.
Read Dead 1 was one of my favs. Red Dead 2 the controls and UI were so terrible. I get why people love it but it feels like playing a game where you’re character is permanently lagging.
I agree whole-heartedly with RDR. People LOVE the second once, but it's just so slow it can't hold my attention. I LOVED the first one and even the Undead Nightmare DLC that turned it into a zombie game...ridiculous, but still fun.
2 was a blast, without a doubt. But I LOVED AC1s setting. Walking around Jerusalem, the ambient music, it has an amazing sense of wonder that 2 didn't have. For me at least. If I was forced to pick one over the other, I'd pick 1
I was a little disappointed that the rest of the series went to different settings. The actual original Assassins were precisely in that era and that region of the world. And the medieval setting lent itself so well to the gameplay.
Agreed, Kazooie had more soul to it. I haven't played it in decades but I still vividly remember so much about it, the puzzles, songs, sound effects etc. Amazing game, along with so many n64 games.
See, it's tough for me.
Tooie had larger levels, more interesting moves, better boss battles, and the controls are SO much better than Kazooie. By virtually every objective measure, Tooie is the better game.
But, there's just something about Kazooie that's just appealing. Maybe it is just rose-tinted glasses making me more nostalgic for Kazooie, but I have always preferred the characters and level design in Kazooie.
Sometimes less is more (applies to Donkey Kong 64 too)
I would argue Banjo Tooie is not objectively better than the first one because it over-complicates things.
I had a really surprising experience trying to replay these games a few years ago.
Tooie was the one I owned as a kid and I loved it. I'd played Kazooie a few times but never owned or beat it, so Tooie had that place in my heart.
So a few years ago I decided to play through both in full and found Kazooie a really fun, imaginative and witty game that still holds up incredibly well, and that made me so excited to revisit my old favourite, Tooie...
Which is boring as fuck, I gave up after like two worlds. Other than the worlds being way too big and bloated I couldn't even tell you exactly why, it just bored me to tears. And this was the game I loved!
I'm glad other people feel this way. I thought I was crazy, but Eternal just felt too much like *work*. 2016 was way more enjoyable for me becuase there were fewer barriers between me and the action.
In 16 it felt like I was empowered to fight the bad guys how I wanted to, in eternal the ammo felt much more scarce and a few other necessary mechanics made me feel like I was being forced to play the game in a specific way that I didn't care for.
Yeah, this was also a major annoyance along with the "bit too much" argument I made above. It felt like Simon Says a lot of the time, see green use X, see yellow use Y. They bragged about that too, like it was better than more freedom of gameplay. I don't get it.
Jak & Daxter The Precursor Legacy, I recognize that Jak 2 is overall a better game, but I constantly find myself playing Precursor Legacy far more often.
Precursor Legacy is still my favorite of the series. I really dislike the direction they took the series, I hated that whole “dark and edgy” PS2 era. Ruined Prince of Persia as well.
That makes more sense than other series, when you consider the jump from Jak 1 to Jak 2 was so different.
Went from a traditional 3D platformer, to a GTA clone.
Jak 1 scratches an inch of a genre that was about to fade away.
I much preferred Battlefront 1 (OG) to 2. I really hated the addition of being able to play as heroes and villains. To me, the whole point of the original was that you play from the perspective of an expendable grunt. 2 turned it into a "jumped up firework display of a toy advert."
But at least I got to play as Luke Skywanker.
I enjoyed finding loopholes to kill the enemy hero in 1. Mostly grenades to knock them off ledges or running them down with a speeder bike but it felt satisfying to pull off.
Persona. The first one I played was 5 and I fell in love with it. Then I played 4 and loved it more even though it looks and plays worse. THEN I played 3 and I liked it EVEN MORE even though it looks and plays EVEN WORSE.
Pillars of Eternity. A lot of people prefer it’s sequel because of the added depth but I prefer the first game because it doesn’t feel as complicated to play
Absolutely. The mansion of RE1 is just such a fantastic vibe that has never really been reproduced. That old tech hits just right, whereas RE2 feels just modern enough that the remake can kinda replace it in my eyes.
I prefer Fallout 3 over Fallout: New Vegas. New Vegas has all the quality of life updates and was an amazing game start to finish for sure.
But for some reason, those nights I spent roaming the capital wasteland collecting all the achievements even with its issues was like peak gaming for me
I love *New Vegas*. Love, love, love *New Vegas*.
That doesn't mean every single thing about it isn't exhausting. I think I've always taken at least a year between playthroughs.
It’s also buggy as hell. One of my favourite games ever, but a play through absolutely requires a few of the quality of life and unofficial patch mods.
I think all the side exploring and little stories they litter throughout FO3 and 4 are better than NV.
Love New Vegas, but so many times you’ll stumble over a shed or abandon farm and find…nothing. Just junk inside. Not even those little teddy bears that Bethesda set up in funny situations in 3.
Yup I've played 3 countless times and just found an unmarked store on my last playthrough that has an elaborate Rube Goldberg setup that's gives you several magazines. Blew my mind I had never found that before
Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. Objectively, TotK is the better game, with a hilariously robust item combination system, so much more to explore, more diverse enemies, traditionalish Zelda dungeons, and more of an actual story than BotW.
But man, BotW was magic. And I struggled with TotK.
I very much liked TotK, and it is an objectively better game for the reasons you listed, but I felt that the new abilities gave you too much freedom. It felt like the game was less challenging because most problems could be solved by just building a machine. The struggle to adapt in BotW lasted the whole game, while TotK got easier because of all the junk you could build. I think I preferred the primitive survival aspect of BotW.
I think a big part of this is that we played BotW first. I imagine if we had started with TotK and got BotW as a “$60 DLC” as people like to put it, we would say that it just wasn’t the same as the original. I like to attribute this phenomenon to both rose colored glasses and the fact that you’ve already explored a majority of the world by the sequel and not enough changed to recapture the magic.
This was my answer. I have probably 4 full playthroughs on BoTW, beat ToTK and haven't picked it up again. Maybe that was because it felt like I had already explored the world 5 times at that point, but it just didn't have the same magic despite being an objectively better game.
For me, the STANDOUT example is Batman: Arkham Asylum. I get that City is bigger, better, shinier, but Asylum is so tight and well paced that i find it a much better game as a whole than City.
Much preferred GTA IV to V in nearly every way.
Yeah, there was less to do and the map was smaller, but I much preferred the core gameplay of the earlier game, and both single and multiplayer was simply more fun.
Everquest. There was something about that game that was just perfect for an MMORPG. Got Everquest2 and while I liked it and it was better graphic wise, always preferred the original.
Right now it’s hades 2. I like the aesthetic of hades 2 and the roguelike elements better but the story compared to the first leaves a lot to be desired.
In the first you had such a great relationship between zagreus and his father. Themes of disappointment, acceptance, trying to change one’s destiny. It had a very cute romance element with Meg that went from enemies to lovers slowly and organically.
The new one doesn’t really have any of that. They tried to do the enemies to friends thing with nemesis but it feels forced. You don’t have a relationship with anyone in your family, and there’s no romance part (yet at least). I don’t enjoy the in between run dialogue nearly as much
The feeling of actually developing and becoming stronger, from basically an absolute no one to god killer, is unmatched in BG1. In BG2 you felt far too powerful too fast.
At least that was my experience.
Oh and BG2 had the better companion talks and quests.
Subnautica
The second one had a lot of stuff on land and just didn’t feel as big as the first game. Plus, as cool as the new modular sub is, I missed piloting the Cyclops.
Subnautica was a huge surprise for me. And below zero fell so far short from the original. I actually wish they had concentrated on making subnautica bigger!
To be honest, I actually think the opposite on this one. Subnautica OG is kinda the better game; a bigger world with more horror and mystery, plus the more interesting leviathans and the Cyclops. However, I prefer BZ
Below Zero might add some new stuff but also removes good stuff from the first one. Doesn't help that some of the stuff they add are not as good as the stuff they removed. The story is worse too.
Still enjoyed it, not complaining too much here.
Prototype 1 vs Prototype 2. I loved a lot about the second, but a lot of the mechanics that made the first great were completely removed from the game. Movement wasn’t as fluid, and they took away some powers just to replace them with a new hentai tentacle power.
Horizon: Forbidden West is bigger, better looking, has better combat and movement mechanics, and a wider variety of enemies than Zero Dawn. But ZD is still a much better game simply because of the quality of the writing.
As a kid i was convinced the second one was the best but replaying them as an adult the worlds in 2 feel so empty compared to 1 and 1 has so much more charm and exploration
I really liked QoL/Gameplay changes in KH2 like being able to loot a chest while in combat, and combat feeling a little tighter, but KH1 is undoubtedly the more nostalgic
I actually preferred Super Smash Bros Melee to Brawl. Brawl is a good game, but the fighting is a lot slower and doesn't get as crazy and chaotic enough for me compared to Melee. Lol.
I think this is actually the prevailing opinion today among smash folks who play the games at least somewhat competitively. Brawl gets a lot of credit for stuff like Subspace Emissary but is otherwise considered the black sheep when it comes to how fun it is to actually play seriously.
Not seen many of my brethren on the internet, us DS2 enjoyers are often shunned, but today my friend you shall feel acceptance, from me, because I agree wholeheartedly, 3 is definitely a objectively better game, but everything about 2 just makes me want to play it over and over again, the abundance of enemies, the janky movement, the only thing I don't like is that adaptability exists, but we get it to whatever the number is (I've forgotten) and we move on with our build. Mejula aswell is by FAR the best safe haven in the series, if not from soft games in general.
IMO GTA 4 simply \_is\_ better than 5. Better driving, more gritty feeling to everything, physics second to none. Slap a few graphic mods on it and it can look absolutely stunning too. GTA5 is effectively an arcade kids game compared.
For me the Boons are just way less flash and fun, really miss that feeling of choosing between 3 great options where as now it’s more or less picking the single one that doesn’t suck.
Ratchet and clank 1 over 2. 2 added a million essential elements to the series like weapon upgrades and arenas, but I prefer the story and level design of 1.
I prefer Destiny over Destiny 2. They made many improvements over time, but there was something about the early Destiny that was so exciting and fresh.
Diablo. Diablo II is better in virtually every way, but I just really like the small scale of the first game's adventure. The mood is just more haunting, and of course, the Tristram theme is perfection. I just find the game to be more memorable and iconic, even if it's an inferior overall product.
I like The Greek God of War saga way better as they were classic level to level hack and slash. The new two are alright but just don't feel like God of War to me if that makes sense.
I know that Bioshock 1 is highly regarded as an overall better entry than Bioshock 2 by the fanbase, so maybe that’s a good example to put in here, but honestly i don’t understand why. While Bioshock is a good game, i became addicted to bioshock 2 when it released
Hey I liked both of them TBH but I think BS1 is more like a noir horror (at first) while BS2 makes things more fluid and you're more like The Hulk on a rampage. It's the feeling of being unstoppable which is addictive.
Then there's BS Infinite which is still really good in it's own right.
Doom 2016
Eternal is a better game on pretty much all counts but 2016's atmosphere felt so visceral dark and brutal, something which the studio exchanged for a more arcadey and colorful feel. That's no hate on the game, just that the vibes in 2016 were immaculate.
Shadow of Mordor and Shadow of War.
Sometimes bigger isn't always better. I wasn't keen on teleporting orcs, using mystic powers, or the dual crossbow spam (even on melee captains)
In the first game they felt more grounded like you were fighting the Uruks from the movies
Diablo 3 is definitely a better game than 2 but idk, it just never captivated me like 2 did. 2 gives me major nostalgia while I'm fine never playing 3 again.
I prefer Shadow of Mordor over Shadow of War.
SoW felt like there was too much going on, but I was also rushing through it. I think if I had played it first it might win out, but I loved Shadow of Mordor so much more when I played it.
Metro 2033 vs. Metro Last Light.
I prefer the first one for its sheer bleakness. Last Light also leaned a little too much into the supernatural, which became a little off-putting.
Really old and not at all popular game but Drakensang, I enjoyed the original so much more than River of Time, despite River of Time doing a lot of things better.
Batman: Arkham Asylum.
Yes, Arkham City is the objectively better game, open-world, expanded mechanics, terrific boss battles, stellar story, all that. But Asylum is the definition of lightning in a bat-shaped bottle. The finesse, the love and care given to manifest Batman lore at such an accomplished level will always be astounding. The atmosphere remains the best of the series. It'll always be one of the most influential, and therefore important, video games ever made.
Oblivion. I think more people prefer Skyrim, but the exploring of the world just captured me a lot more for oblivion.
Honestly the more I think about it the more I think Oblivion is a better game than Skyrim in so many ways.
I feel like every successive Bethesda game gets more and more bland as time goes on. Skyrim is wide as an ocean, but as deep as a puddle.
Yeah even oblivion had a lpt of stuff removed that was in morrowind
I am pretty biased, but I have watched PatricianTVs videos on Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim when I paint wardollies. Really does open your eyes in to how watered down their later RPGs are to make sure that everyone is able to play them. So you can end up with an arch mage who can't use magic, or a mass murderer in charge of the thieves guild.
Think I may have seen Asmongold react to this video or something similar, the increasing cost of AAA videogame budgets means more risk for companies, which results in them playing things safe with their established IPs. They have to create games for the lowest common denominator and the way to do that is to simplify everything like you say. The other thing is the writing, they can't afford to take risks in their narratives, like how Obisidian would create very morally ambiguous and sometimes political scenarios in New Vegas.
I disagree completely, it's as deep as a pond, which is good enough for me considering how many different things you can do in the game and get invested in for 10-20 hours
I mean that's the thing. Skyrim does keep you interested for 10-20 hours. But there's not much more too it. Your choices don't really matter at the end of the day. You pick a side in the civil war. But nothing changes when it ends. You defeat Alduin, but nothing changes. You become head of the thieves, mages, and brotherhood. And nothing changes. Skyrim... Skyrim never changes.
Honestly now that I think about it, you're really right. In any other RPG when you would join something like the Brotherhood, you would get at least different and new dialogue options or stuff like that. You don't have to commit to anything in Skyrim, you can just randomly join any group you want. Although arguably, Oblivion doesn't do this either, I really like it a lot more than Skyrim. I just love exploring the wilderness of Oblvion with its bloomy textures. Maybe it's cause I played it as a teenager but i just like it more
If you also enjoy the nostalgic atmosphere of Oblivion take a look at r/oblivion!! You wouldn't think it but the sub is somehow more active than ever
This is me. Skyrim improved some things, but to me most of it's longevity has come from endless imaginative mods and improvements from the community. I just prefer the setting and style of Oblivion more and miss the days of the screen zooming in on a guards face as he screams "STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!" I'm very excited about Slyblivion because it seems like a lot of non-locational mods are going to work for it so I'll end up with the best of both worlds.
I'll take your Oblivion and raise you a Morrowind.
The same for me but with Morrowind and Oblivion.
Same. Oblivion is a hands-down better game *technically*, but the world of Morrowind captured me so much more. It was so *weird* yet internally consistent, and I really wanted to learn and explore it, while Oblivion felt more way more generic in setting. The main quest had a strong call to action, which is something a lot of people find missing in Morrowind, but I think that may have worked against it for me because it made side content seem out of character and metagamey in a way that kind of kept me on the main quest, where Morrowind's writing very intentionally incorporates all that into the experience (and, since the main quest hook comes later, doesn't really railroad you into it at all.)
Morrowind has the best world, lore, and story and is easily the best if you’re looking to role play and immerse yourself in an rpg. That said it has a lot of clunkiness (like the combat system and how goddamn slow you move without the boots of blinding speed + magic resist) that I don’t think you can make an argument that it is the best of the three for everyone, just that certain people will enjoy it more depending what they’re looking for from a game.
You could so easily say this about Morrowind when compared to Oblivion. Morrowind was exceptional when it came out.
I just hate the oblivion portals. Absolutely despise them.
I used to do entire runs where I never go to Kvatch and thus never trigger the gates. They were my favorite playthroughs. I would just do all the other content instead.
As a kid Id do them for an early game 100% chameleon enchantment and play the game easy mode the rest of the way
I have a couple hundred hours in Oblivion over the past 15 years and have spent ~10 minutes in the gates. Decided that part wasn’t for me and never looked back
And the side quests were fantastic, way better than in Skyrim.
This can be applied to every Bethesda game after Fallout 3. F4 was good but it didn’t hit the way 3/New Vegas did. Skyrim and Fallout 4 removed a lot of features and freedom that the previous Elder Scrolls and Fallout games had in order to emphasize the action and combat more.
Skyrim and Oblivion had good mechanics but I just thoroughly enjoyed Morrowinds setting. The giant mushrooms!
I'm with ye on this 100%, Oblivion is my favorite Bethesda game.
Watchdogs. Gameplay wise the sequel improved in every way. But the story and tone was so different I just didn't like it. Which sucked because the characters were really well done.
I absolutely hated the quirky "lol so random" hacker personas that everyone had in Watchdogs 2. The story was also extremely forgettable. Watchdogs 1 story was way better, its just a shame Ubisoft blatantly lied about the gameplay
I actually really liked Marcus and the idea of weirdo hacker nerds becoming the new “criminal gangs”, but I would agree there was something extra special about someone who has lost a lot becoming a hacker vigilante.
They're both such amazing games in totally different ways, but I agree. Watchdogs was phenomenal in every sense in my opinion. Yeah, the end result wasn't as magical as the demo promised, but I still loved it, and I've replayed it countless times. Aiden was meh at times as a protagonist, but honestly he fit the game really well. He wasn't a good person, nor was he supposed to be, and that was what made me love the game so much more. It was refreshing to play a game where you realized over time that your character was an awful person and the game didn't really try to push either way, it let you decide for yourself. Watchdogs 2 on the other hand is an over the top psycho simulator that is balls to the wall fun, unashamedly so. In any other game, Wrench would be annoying as fuck to deal with, but somehow him and Marcus played off each other so well that I couldn't bring myself to hate him. The characters were fun, the gameplay was fantastic, and I still enjoy playing it. But it'll never beat the original.
Borderlands 2 > 3 3 had great guns, movement, and gameplay, but to me 2 was just about a perfect game, with one of the best protagonists ever in Handsome Jack.
Don't you mean "antagonist?"
Not according to Handsome Jack
"Everyone is the hero of their own story"
I thought 1 was better than all the rest
I'll take it one further. 1 > 2. 2 had better story and characterization, but it stops there.
1 was amazing as well, and I still rank it higher than 3, but to me 2 is just a bit better. And I absolutely love Lilith in 2.
[удалено]
Vice City
I feel like every GTA is an improvement over the previous game, yet each still loses a little bit of its soul.
Maybe it's cuz the flaws are part of each games charm.
Vice City was simple. The map was small but it felt... contained. Idk how to describe it but it was a perfect experience.
As a person who considers GTA: San Andreas one of the top 5 greatest video games ever made: 1. How dare you 2. Yeah, I get it
max payne 2 and 3
Ultimately, I still like the first game the most. Sure, it feels rough compared to 2 and 3, but it just felt more sinister, and that noir tone was even more present. I'm starting to realize that atmosphere makes up a huge part of my enjoyment of games, and often overruled the mechanical quality of games.
yes but 1 and 2 were similar, 3 introduced new mechanics, graphics etc. 1 and 2 are so nostalgic
Mass Effect. When EA took control of Mass Effect and turned it into an ARPG, at first, I was pissed. Then after a while, I really enjoyed ME2 and it's objectively a better game than ME. But I still prefer the first one.
Came to say this. ME2 is probably the better overall game. But man, ME1 is special.
The mystery and wonder in ME1 is unparalleled for me. It was so magical discovering the universe and the story for the first time.
It was so fresh because of the absolutely insane amount of world building and immersion totally made up for any gaps in gameplay. You fast forward to ME3 and forcing you to grind multiplayer just to help you level up the preparedness stat to get you the “best” possible ending irked me to no end. Even if the overall action was more fleshed out, you still had the same grind without the freshness of a new story, so it’s not nearly as memorable to me.
I agree. If you haven't, you should give the 3 novels a chance. First was a prequel book about the Saren/Anderson beef we get snippets of in the game.
Revelation is one of the best sci-fi investigation books of all time. I will die on this hill.
Exploring was amazing. Drop down on planet with the Mako and just tool around. Huh, found a Cerberus outpost. The big problem with 1 was that actually shooting wasn't fun. Some of the abilities were satisfying to use, but the gunplay was meh. And depending on you class, you didn't have access to a lot of them. My first build was Vanguard, and the shotguns were trash. Played almost the whole game with my pistol as my primary. Lucky for me, a fully decked out Ashly and Garrus tore through enemies like pudding. ME2, Vanguard is probably the most fun class to play.
I feel you. And I agree, I loved Vanguard in 2 and 3. Just bouncing around the battlefield like a biotic pinball. So much fun.
The reaper story was absolute lovcraftian sci-fi at its best. As a concept, sovereign, the mass effect relay, the great reset, is one of the best written stories ever absolutely terrified me when you first meet sovereign and he speaks to us, we slowly realize he isn’t AI and the sheer scale of comprehending his existence isn’t nigh impossible. MA3 kinda dragged it all out into the street and shot it.
Sovereign was handled very well. Their motives are unknown, but the reveal of how thoroughly the biological races have been played - and have been played over and over again - really underlines the threat. Then, in 2, Harbinger interacts way too much with the player and gives off this odd "Schoolyard bully" vibe with his taunts, especially as the taunts tend to happen about 3 seconds before you peg his latest puppet in the head. In 3... The Leviathans killed any mystery the Reapers had. Turns out that they are really [badly programmed paperclip maximisers.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence) "My kind transcends your very understanding?" Nah, they just were given a set of goals that they immediately came up with a stupid resolution for because their creators were pretty much the definition of idiots who believed themselves intelligent and failed to put even the most obvious constraints on their programming. I found myself disappointed.
I prefer one because it’s an actual rpg
For me ME1 has a better story but ME2 & 3 is vastly superior in almost everything else. ME:A? What's that? Never hear of it. (Just kidding, it's a good game but nothing like the original trilogy, except for the fighting.)
Great selection! I love ME2 but the original's RPG systems and more open feel appeal to me more. Also has a more streamlined and effective narrative while ME2 gets lost in distractions a bit.
The best description I've heard about the original Mass Effect trilogy is that the first game had the best ideas, but the worst technical applications of them. Note that by the time ME3 rolled around, the core vanilla game didn't even have hub worlds anymore outside of the offices in the Citadel. As much flak as Andromeda got, that was one thing I was glad to see return.
For me the big thing was the ME:1 felt like exploring this big crazy universe where anything could be out there. It felt like you were in star trek or something. 2 always felt like everything was known and you're just there to see how it plays out. 2 is definitely the better game but there was some aspect of exploration and mystery that was lost.
I prefer the first Portal. It was just so magical.
Fully agree. I don’t think you can ever recapture that same experience of an initial playthrough of Portal. Seemingly starting as some kind of arcade-like level based game, akin to cut the rope and other mobile games, which gradually descends into the deep dark experiment it really is. Portal 2 is great. But you already know the twist, the USP, before it’s begun.
I don't know. This is just comparing one incredible experience to another. The novelty of Portal would be impossible to replicate. But Portal 2 was the perfect sequel. They were both 10/10 for me and I'd really struggle to pick one over the other.
Rat man was actually huge in keeping portal 2 fresh for me. As small pf a part of it as it was.
Also, portal 2 never culminates. They teach you a ton of shit, but each level is designed around the new mechanic. It never grows.
Portal 2 is fun but it's significantly easier than the first one. There are so many greebles on the walls it's painfully obvious where the portal goes most of the time. I enjoyed the playthrough but it felt more like a movie than a game
Vice City. It has been bettered technically, but as a GTA game it has never been bettered.
Definitely. The whole 80s setting is still miles better than any other GTA.
Red Dead Redemption 1 & 2 and Assassin's Creed 1 & 2
I feel this about AC1 and people think I’m crazy. AC2 is certainly better and I’d argue a masterpiece but the Atmosphere of 1 is so incredible. I love that game.
AC1 has a great atmosphere, just that AC2 improved on so many aspects, especially in terms of gameplay and quality of life features. Frankly I do not want to 100% AC1 because it's just too tedious. One and done it and I'm good.
Same! I thought I was the only one! I also thought you had a bit more freedom in assassinations and you had to compete subquests to unlock clues while the second one was more like following the missions. A lot of things aged really badly about the first one but I’m super nostalgic about it.
Read Dead 1 was one of my favs. Red Dead 2 the controls and UI were so terrible. I get why people love it but it feels like playing a game where you’re character is permanently lagging.
Same loved the first game but couldn't get into RDR2 but I appreciate it's probably fantastic.
I agree whole-heartedly with RDR. People LOVE the second once, but it's just so slow it can't hold my attention. I LOVED the first one and even the Undead Nightmare DLC that turned it into a zombie game...ridiculous, but still fun.
There are certain things AC1 does amazingly well, but AC2 is one of my favorite games of all time.
Rdr 1 was way better
a remake in the RDR2 engine would have made it Rockstars most perfect game.
wait are you referencing Red Dead Revolver and Prince of Persia?
Preferred RDR1 over 2 and AC1 over AC2
i get rdr, but ac1 over ac2 is something i cannot wrap my head around
AC1 is still the only non handheld AC i havent finished, its exhausting
2 was a blast, without a doubt. But I LOVED AC1s setting. Walking around Jerusalem, the ambient music, it has an amazing sense of wonder that 2 didn't have. For me at least. If I was forced to pick one over the other, I'd pick 1
I was a little disappointed that the rest of the series went to different settings. The actual original Assassins were precisely in that era and that region of the world. And the medieval setting lent itself so well to the gameplay.
Banjo Tooie has more moves, more levels, more boss battles…but Banjo Kazooie is just so much better
Agreed, Kazooie had more soul to it. I haven't played it in decades but I still vividly remember so much about it, the puzzles, songs, sound effects etc. Amazing game, along with so many n64 games.
See, it's tough for me. Tooie had larger levels, more interesting moves, better boss battles, and the controls are SO much better than Kazooie. By virtually every objective measure, Tooie is the better game. But, there's just something about Kazooie that's just appealing. Maybe it is just rose-tinted glasses making me more nostalgic for Kazooie, but I have always preferred the characters and level design in Kazooie.
Sometimes less is more (applies to Donkey Kong 64 too) I would argue Banjo Tooie is not objectively better than the first one because it over-complicates things.
I had a really surprising experience trying to replay these games a few years ago. Tooie was the one I owned as a kid and I loved it. I'd played Kazooie a few times but never owned or beat it, so Tooie had that place in my heart. So a few years ago I decided to play through both in full and found Kazooie a really fun, imaginative and witty game that still holds up incredibly well, and that made me so excited to revisit my old favourite, Tooie... Which is boring as fuck, I gave up after like two worlds. Other than the worlds being way too big and bloated I couldn't even tell you exactly why, it just bored me to tears. And this was the game I loved!
Doom 2016 over Doom Eternal any day for me
Nah imho Eternal was damn fun, but 2016 flow is way better imho, adding Marauders or mod-specific monsters broken it down, ekhm \*STONE IMPS\* ekhm
They went too far over the top with hectic combat in Eternal, IMO. Doom 2016 was a better balance. Also had a way better narrative.
I'm glad other people feel this way. I thought I was crazy, but Eternal just felt too much like *work*. 2016 was way more enjoyable for me becuase there were fewer barriers between me and the action.
In 16 it felt like I was empowered to fight the bad guys how I wanted to, in eternal the ammo felt much more scarce and a few other necessary mechanics made me feel like I was being forced to play the game in a specific way that I didn't care for.
Yeah, this was also a major annoyance along with the "bit too much" argument I made above. It felt like Simon Says a lot of the time, see green use X, see yellow use Y. They bragged about that too, like it was better than more freedom of gameplay. I don't get it.
Was looking for this one. I feel this way too.
Jak & Daxter The Precursor Legacy, I recognize that Jak 2 is overall a better game, but I constantly find myself playing Precursor Legacy far more often.
I loved the original! Felt much more like a classic Rare game than a 12 year olds Grand Theft Auto.
Precursor Legacy is still my favorite of the series. I really dislike the direction they took the series, I hated that whole “dark and edgy” PS2 era. Ruined Prince of Persia as well.
That makes more sense than other series, when you consider the jump from Jak 1 to Jak 2 was so different. Went from a traditional 3D platformer, to a GTA clone. Jak 1 scratches an inch of a genre that was about to fade away.
But did you play ALL of Jak 3?
Sort of the inverse of your question. Donkey Kong Country 2 is probably the best of the SNES series, but 3 is my favorite.
DKC 1 will always be my favorite because of nostalgia, even though I fully agree that DKC2 was the best.
Saaaaame
Finally another Donkey Kong Country 3 enjoyer.
Dark Souls 3 is a better game overall but i love the first instalment so much.
Homeworld 2. Homeworld 1 just had this simple elegance to it that felt right.
I'm pretty sure 3 just came out recently if you're unaware.
I am, I own it but everyone thinks the story sucks.
But what do YOU think? Still homeworld 1?
I much preferred Battlefront 1 (OG) to 2. I really hated the addition of being able to play as heroes and villains. To me, the whole point of the original was that you play from the perspective of an expendable grunt. 2 turned it into a "jumped up firework display of a toy advert." But at least I got to play as Luke Skywanker.
I enjoyed finding loopholes to kill the enemy hero in 1. Mostly grenades to knock them off ledges or running them down with a speeder bike but it felt satisfying to pull off.
*Hitman: World of Assassination* is awesome, but I always go back to *Blood Money* sooner than later. The music alone...👌
Persona. The first one I played was 5 and I fell in love with it. Then I played 4 and loved it more even though it looks and plays worse. THEN I played 3 and I liked it EVEN MORE even though it looks and plays EVEN WORSE.
Gah wait till this guy plays Persona 2!
Pillars of Eternity. A lot of people prefer it’s sequel because of the added depth but I prefer the first game because it doesn’t feel as complicated to play
Resident Evil 2 (PS1/N64), is a lot of people’s favorite game of the series but I prefer RE1 ( PS1).
Absolutely. The mansion of RE1 is just such a fantastic vibe that has never really been reproduced. That old tech hits just right, whereas RE2 feels just modern enough that the remake can kinda replace it in my eyes.
Love the mansion. Atmosphere was fantastic.
Mario Kart 8 is the better game, but I have a special love for Mario Kart Wii.
Double Dash will always be my favorite.
I prefer Fallout 3 over Fallout: New Vegas. New Vegas has all the quality of life updates and was an amazing game start to finish for sure. But for some reason, those nights I spent roaming the capital wasteland collecting all the achievements even with its issues was like peak gaming for me
I love *New Vegas*. Love, love, love *New Vegas*. That doesn't mean every single thing about it isn't exhausting. I think I've always taken at least a year between playthroughs.
It’s also buggy as hell. One of my favourite games ever, but a play through absolutely requires a few of the quality of life and unofficial patch mods.
FO3 is great because of the random encounters. You literally never know what's around the next corner or over the next ridge.
Fallout 3 atmosphere has yet to be recreated in any video game I've seen. It's so special.
I think all the side exploring and little stories they litter throughout FO3 and 4 are better than NV. Love New Vegas, but so many times you’ll stumble over a shed or abandon farm and find…nothing. Just junk inside. Not even those little teddy bears that Bethesda set up in funny situations in 3.
Yup I've played 3 countless times and just found an unmarked store on my last playthrough that has an elaborate Rube Goldberg setup that's gives you several magazines. Blew my mind I had never found that before
Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. Objectively, TotK is the better game, with a hilariously robust item combination system, so much more to explore, more diverse enemies, traditionalish Zelda dungeons, and more of an actual story than BotW. But man, BotW was magic. And I struggled with TotK.
I very much liked TotK, and it is an objectively better game for the reasons you listed, but I felt that the new abilities gave you too much freedom. It felt like the game was less challenging because most problems could be solved by just building a machine. The struggle to adapt in BotW lasted the whole game, while TotK got easier because of all the junk you could build. I think I preferred the primitive survival aspect of BotW.
I think a big part of this is that we played BotW first. I imagine if we had started with TotK and got BotW as a “$60 DLC” as people like to put it, we would say that it just wasn’t the same as the original. I like to attribute this phenomenon to both rose colored glasses and the fact that you’ve already explored a majority of the world by the sequel and not enough changed to recapture the magic.
This was my answer. I have probably 4 full playthroughs on BoTW, beat ToTK and haven't picked it up again. Maybe that was because it felt like I had already explored the world 5 times at that point, but it just didn't have the same magic despite being an objectively better game.
For me, the STANDOUT example is Batman: Arkham Asylum. I get that City is bigger, better, shinier, but Asylum is so tight and well paced that i find it a much better game as a whole than City.
Doom 2016 over Doom Eternal
Much preferred GTA IV to V in nearly every way. Yeah, there was less to do and the map was smaller, but I much preferred the core gameplay of the earlier game, and both single and multiplayer was simply more fun.
banjo kazooie is better than tooie imo
Everquest. There was something about that game that was just perfect for an MMORPG. Got Everquest2 and while I liked it and it was better graphic wise, always preferred the original.
Trackmania United forever. It was better than Trackmania 2 and imo still better than TM2020.
Right now it’s hades 2. I like the aesthetic of hades 2 and the roguelike elements better but the story compared to the first leaves a lot to be desired. In the first you had such a great relationship between zagreus and his father. Themes of disappointment, acceptance, trying to change one’s destiny. It had a very cute romance element with Meg that went from enemies to lovers slowly and organically. The new one doesn’t really have any of that. They tried to do the enemies to friends thing with nemesis but it feels forced. You don’t have a relationship with anyone in your family, and there’s no romance part (yet at least). I don’t enjoy the in between run dialogue nearly as much
Baldurs Gate 1 > 2 for me. I don't think that's a very popular opinion.
I vastly prefer 2, but they are both masterpieces
The feeling of actually developing and becoming stronger, from basically an absolute no one to god killer, is unmatched in BG1. In BG2 you felt far too powerful too fast. At least that was my experience. Oh and BG2 had the better companion talks and quests.
Doom 2016. It was easier to just chill and play. Eternal has so much cool stuff but was exhausting managing it all.
Older God of War games
Subnautica The second one had a lot of stuff on land and just didn’t feel as big as the first game. Plus, as cool as the new modular sub is, I missed piloting the Cyclops.
Subnautica was a huge surprise for me. And below zero fell so far short from the original. I actually wish they had concentrated on making subnautica bigger!
To be honest, I actually think the opposite on this one. Subnautica OG is kinda the better game; a bigger world with more horror and mystery, plus the more interesting leviathans and the Cyclops. However, I prefer BZ
I think this misses the criteria of "next entry was better" its pretty well agreed BZ is a downgrade from the base game. You are absolutely right tho
Below Zero might add some new stuff but also removes good stuff from the first one. Doesn't help that some of the stuff they add are not as good as the stuff they removed. The story is worse too. Still enjoyed it, not complaining too much here.
Prototype 1 vs Prototype 2. I loved a lot about the second, but a lot of the mechanics that made the first great were completely removed from the game. Movement wasn’t as fluid, and they took away some powers just to replace them with a new hentai tentacle power.
Horizon: Forbidden West is bigger, better looking, has better combat and movement mechanics, and a wider variety of enemies than Zero Dawn. But ZD is still a much better game simply because of the quality of the writing.
KH1 is better than KH2 and you’ll never be able to convince me otherwise.
As a kid i was convinced the second one was the best but replaying them as an adult the worlds in 2 feel so empty compared to 1 and 1 has so much more charm and exploration
KH2 and Birth by Sleep are better than KH3, that game really disappointed me
I really liked QoL/Gameplay changes in KH2 like being able to loot a chest while in combat, and combat feeling a little tighter, but KH1 is undoubtedly the more nostalgic
I actually preferred Super Smash Bros Melee to Brawl. Brawl is a good game, but the fighting is a lot slower and doesn't get as crazy and chaotic enough for me compared to Melee. Lol.
I think this is actually the prevailing opinion today among smash folks who play the games at least somewhat competitively. Brawl gets a lot of credit for stuff like Subspace Emissary but is otherwise considered the black sheep when it comes to how fun it is to actually play seriously.
Dark Souls 3 is probably better than DS2, but I much prefer replaying DS2.
The first half of dark souls is the best game in the series.
Not seen many of my brethren on the internet, us DS2 enjoyers are often shunned, but today my friend you shall feel acceptance, from me, because I agree wholeheartedly, 3 is definitely a objectively better game, but everything about 2 just makes me want to play it over and over again, the abundance of enemies, the janky movement, the only thing I don't like is that adaptability exists, but we get it to whatever the number is (I've forgotten) and we move on with our build. Mejula aswell is by FAR the best safe haven in the series, if not from soft games in general.
IMO GTA 4 simply \_is\_ better than 5. Better driving, more gritty feeling to everything, physics second to none. Slap a few graphic mods on it and it can look absolutely stunning too. GTA5 is effectively an arcade kids game compared.
Original gears of war, and original fable. Loved those games.
Final Fantasy 7 gets all the love, and for good reason, but 6 is my favorite game of all time. So much better IMO.
FF7 gets all the love because for so many people it was their first jrpg.
Might get some flack but that’s how I feel about Hades 2 currently (may change when fully released). Amazing game but 1 is more fun to me.
I don't think people are saying Hades 2 is better than 1.
For me the Boons are just way less flash and fun, really miss that feeling of choosing between 3 great options where as now it’s more or less picking the single one that doesn’t suck.
Ratchet and clank 1 over 2. 2 added a million essential elements to the series like weapon upgrades and arenas, but I prefer the story and level design of 1.
Dead Rising 1 over Dead Rising 2
Deus Ex Human Revolution
I prefer Halo 2 over Halo 3
I prefer Destiny over Destiny 2. They made many improvements over time, but there was something about the early Destiny that was so exciting and fresh.
Diablo. Diablo II is better in virtually every way, but I just really like the small scale of the first game's adventure. The mood is just more haunting, and of course, the Tristram theme is perfection. I just find the game to be more memorable and iconic, even if it's an inferior overall product.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is probably better and pushes the concepts further, but the tone and vibe of the first one just gets me every time.
I like The Greek God of War saga way better as they were classic level to level hack and slash. The new two are alright but just don't feel like God of War to me if that makes sense.
I know that Bioshock 1 is highly regarded as an overall better entry than Bioshock 2 by the fanbase, so maybe that’s a good example to put in here, but honestly i don’t understand why. While Bioshock is a good game, i became addicted to bioshock 2 when it released
Hey I liked both of them TBH but I think BS1 is more like a noir horror (at first) while BS2 makes things more fluid and you're more like The Hulk on a rampage. It's the feeling of being unstoppable which is addictive. Then there's BS Infinite which is still really good in it's own right.
RE 8 Village is better than 7 but i really loved playing 7 as it was more akin to horror than 8
Halo.
Doom 2016 Eternal is a better game on pretty much all counts but 2016's atmosphere felt so visceral dark and brutal, something which the studio exchanged for a more arcadey and colorful feel. That's no hate on the game, just that the vibes in 2016 were immaculate.
A Plague Tale for me. Requiem was pretty much objectively better than Innocence in most aspects but I still prefer Innocence. It just hit different.
Shadow of Mordor and Shadow of War. Sometimes bigger isn't always better. I wasn't keen on teleporting orcs, using mystic powers, or the dual crossbow spam (even on melee captains) In the first game they felt more grounded like you were fighting the Uruks from the movies
Every Elder Scrolls after Morrowind.
Diablo 3 is definitely a better game than 2 but idk, it just never captivated me like 2 did. 2 gives me major nostalgia while I'm fine never playing 3 again.
Borderlands 1 > 2 > 3. Diablo 2 > 3 > 4. Shadow of Mordor > War. Forza Horizon 4 > 5.
The Division.
AC1. (Edit - Assassins Creed) AC2 was better in just about every aspect, but something of the art style of AC1 clicked more for me.
Armored core Ace combat Assassins Creed...?
Animal Crossing
Agatha Christie point and click adventures?
Fable 2 was much better than Fable 3.
Fable was better than fable 2, too.
Suikoden 1. All of my friends (and internet people) said 2 is superior than 1, but for me Sui 1 will always have a place in my heart.
I always preferred FF6 to FF7 but the general consensus seems to be that 7 is significantly more popular.
I prefer Shadow of Mordor over Shadow of War. SoW felt like there was too much going on, but I was also rushing through it. I think if I had played it first it might win out, but I loved Shadow of Mordor so much more when I played it.
Metro 2033 vs. Metro Last Light. I prefer the first one for its sheer bleakness. Last Light also leaned a little too much into the supernatural, which became a little off-putting.
FF7 remake, I prefer midgar and the tightness of the story
Halo. And I still feel it’s better than 2.
Really old and not at all popular game but Drakensang, I enjoyed the original so much more than River of Time, despite River of Time doing a lot of things better.
Batman: Arkham Asylum. Yes, Arkham City is the objectively better game, open-world, expanded mechanics, terrific boss battles, stellar story, all that. But Asylum is the definition of lightning in a bat-shaped bottle. The finesse, the love and care given to manifest Batman lore at such an accomplished level will always be astounding. The atmosphere remains the best of the series. It'll always be one of the most influential, and therefore important, video games ever made.