Nope

Even though Bioshock 2 wasn't as groundbreaking as the first one doesn't make it much worse.

Bioshock simply had a fantastic atmosphere and admittedly a better story. Bioshock 2 is on par with everything else, but the feeling of wandering through Rapture for the second time just isn't as pleasing as the first time.

Stil VERY enjoyable game.

If a game is objectively good, then its performance in relation to any predecessor (whether in sales or reviews) is simply a matter of passing interest. A good game is a good game.

The only people who like to bash good games are emotionally deficient individuals who love to hate. And normally this behaviour is associated with an equally irrational animosity towards the platfom the game is on; and it's normally an exclusive title. So the question really is, is the bashing directed towards the game, or is the game being used as a proxy for having another bash at the platform?

That's not to say people who have played a "good" game but think it's a piece of crap aren't entitled to that opinion and can't strongly voice their opinion. But those people are bashing what to them is a bad game, and that's perfectly legit.

One sequel I think is going to underperform relative to its predecessor is Valkyria Chronicles II. America was by far VC's biggest market, yet it's pretty much the weakest market for PSP, but we'll never know since it's both a UMD and PSN game. But I'm not going to bash the game, neither am I going to bash the platform it's on. Rather I'm going to [figuratively] bash the people who made the decision to take it away from my chosen platform and put it on a platform that I don't enjoy using.

A good game is a good game, it should not be bashed.

Yes, they should be bashed. I'm always in favor of game-bashing. Give me a game and I will bash it.

Honestly, it's a big disappointment to see a series like Grand Theft Auto or Bioshock lose their phenomenon-making status in gaming. What's worse is seeing the decline continue till the series is completely dead.

RIP Tony Hawk, Crash Bandicoot, Unreal Tournament, SSX, etc.

Qualitatively, I think a sequel needs to evolve and refine and therefore outdo its predecessor. If it didn't we'd be stuck with the same crap over and over and we'd all get bored.

What those of us who voted "yes" are arguing is this:

The original game is the foundation. Each sequel is an iteration of the original game with a new story, new characters, and new features. Henceforth, if the foundation is a good one, then there is no reason any sequel should be worse than the original.

There are sequels worse than the original. The latest is Crackdown 2, which was highly anticipated, but failed to deliver in taking the best from the predecessor and pushing it to new heights.

The question then becomes, how can a sequel be worse than it's predecessor?

as far as i am concrned ff13 was miles bettr thn ff12.

th others mayb they wernt as gud as predecessors

Each and every Final Fantasy game is a game of it's own. Besides Final Fantasy X-2, there has never been a true sequel to any of the Final Fantasy games.

I may be wrong and correct me if I am.

"Doesn't outdo its predecessor" is a bit vague, but I think it's fair to call out a game or the developers of that game, if it fails to improve on its predecessor, otherwise it's pretty hard for the developers to know what was wrong with their game (mindless bashing is just stupid though, no one gains anything from that).

Bashing is not okay, legitimate criticism is.

no, def not.....while the sequel should improve on things such as controls, graphics, etc. it is difficult to regain that unique feel that the first had and that's where alot of sequels lose points on review scores