By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Has the sequel of a game you liked ever gone exclusive to a console you didn't own?

Dusk on 21 January 2015
Hiku said:

Have you ever played a game, or game series, and wanted to play the sequel or spiritual sequel, but couldn't because it went exclusive to a console of a different brand that you didn't own?

A few guidelines/rules:

1.) It only counts if the console the sequel went to is of a different brand than the one you played it on.
2.) Spiritual successors count.
3.) Timed exclusives do not count.
4.) If the game was released for your console, but only in a language you can't read, that counts.
5.) Home consoles only.
6.) Post your console owning history, so people more easily can see where you're coming from.

As for me, two games come to mind.

Console history: NES > N64 > PS2 > PS3.

- Xenoblade. I was a big fan of the Xeno games on PS1 and PS2, so would have liked to play this one as well, but it went to Wii. Although the game's artistic style wasn't as appealing to me as Xenogears and Xenosaga, so it didn't bother me much, but if I had the chance I would have wanted to try it out.
- Tales of Vesperia. It did appear on PS3, but only in Japanese. But my Japanese isn't good enough to fully enjoy the game, so maybe I'll go back to it at some point in the future.

Xenoblade is technically different from Xenogears and Xenosaga. It's not a direct sequel, but I get what you are saying. 

Residen Evil Revelations for the 3DS and Wii U. Now to be pretty much everything else lol. Not that worried about it though, it seems like a bit of a bastardization of the game anyway, not really a direct sequel. In many ways less than my preveious statement about Xeno, with the exception of the name. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Around the Network
d21lewis on 21 January 2015

Jet Set Radio Future. Bought the first like three times (Dreamcast, Xbox 360. Vita) and STILL haven't played the sequel!!
Grrrr....



Ruler on 21 January 2015
shikamaru317 said:

I don't believe so, I guess I've been fortunate that way so far. The most disappointing thing for me is the Sony exclusives that Sega has made over the years, Yakuza and Valkyria Chronicles in particular, but they were new IP's, not sequels.


They didnt made these games exclusives. Its just that the porting to the xbox 360 wasnt worth it dueto this console being not successful in japan. People even had to beg sony that yakuza 5 would be released in the west, in digital form.



estebxx on 21 January 2015
Samus Aran said:

Bloodborne is a spiritual succesor to the Souls series. Google metaseries.

I see people claiming all the time that Xenoblade Chronicles X is not a new IP, but it is. It's a spiritual sucessor to Xenoblade Chronicles, it doesn't take place in the same world.

Xenoblade Chronicles and Xenoblade Chronicles X are all part of the Xeno metaseries. Demon Souls, Dark Souls 1 & 2 and Bloodborne are all part of the Souls metaseries.

whats the point of youre post? i know everything that you are saying but that doesnt change what im saying either.

Bloodborne and Dark Souls aside from being part of the Soul series have nothing in common, Bloodborne is a new Ip that is part of the Soul series but it isnt a sequel to Dark Souls, it doesnt follow the story and the gameplay has been changed quite a lot, just like Xenoblade is not a sequel to Xenosaga it is just a new IP that is just part of the Xeno series, and the gameplay and story are totally different from Xenosaga.

so in other words Bloodborne is a new IP that is part of the souls series and it would still wouldnt have happened if it wasnt for Sony who approached From Software to get this game done.

but more importantly... we are both right, yeah both Xenoblade and Bloodborne are new IPs, regardless of the fact that they belong in a series of games.



POE on 21 January 2015

Banjo Kazooie



Around the Network
estebxx on 21 January 2015
BraLoD said:

Yes, I was thinking about it, Demon's Souls was a "older" part of history than Bloodborne is, and if it's after the good ending, there are really no more need to use souls, and then they moved to blood after the "disease" that is affecting the world took place. Now using tecnology as they progressed with it with a more peaceful world for some time and the need to rebuild society.
But even so, I don't think it will be a sequel, but if we have the some DS characters... yeah.
I'm also avoiding Bloodborne news, I like to watch the trailers and all, but I'm avoiding to know the plot before the game comes. But it's really hints about it?
I've not seem people discussing it here.

ive only heard people talk about that on a Podcast, and saw a article about it but i avoided reading the whole thing to avoid spoilers, but yeah i would also like it if it was just a totally new game and not a sequel, if im gonna get a DeS 2 i hope its actually called... well DeS 2 and i hope it takes place in a similar era to DeS 1.



Samus Aran on 21 January 2015
estebxx said:
Samus Aran said:

Bloodborne is a spiritual succesor to the Souls series. Google metaseries.

I see people claiming all the time that Xenoblade Chronicles X is not a new IP, but it is. It's a spiritual sucessor to Xenoblade Chronicles, it doesn't take place in the same world.

Xenoblade Chronicles and Xenoblade Chronicles X are all part of the Xeno metaseries. Demon Souls, Dark Souls 1 & 2 and Bloodborne are all part of the Souls metaseries.

whats the point of youre post? i know everything that you are saying but that doesnt change what im saying either.

Bloodborne and Dark Souls aside from being part of the Soul series have nothing in common, Bloodborne is a new Ip that is part of the Soul series but it isnt a sequel to Dark Souls, it doesnt follow the story and the gameplay has been changed quite a lot, just like Xenoblade is not a sequel to Xenosaga it is just a new IP that is just part of the Xeno series, and the gameplay and story are totally different from Xenosaga.

so in other words Bloodborne is a new IP that is part of the souls series and it would still wouldnt have happened if it wasnt for Sony who approached From Software to get this game done.

but more importantly... we are both right, yeah both Xenoblade and Bloodborne are new IPs, regardless of the fact that they belong in a series of games.

From Software would've probably made a similar Souls game for multiplatforms if they weren't moneyhatted by Sony. So kudos to Sony for taking a potential game away from Microsoft lol. 



binary solo on 21 January 2015

Why does it have to be a different brand? Valkyria chronicles is lost to me because it went to PSP and I don't like that platform.

One that fits the rules is oddworld.

I won't say Tomb Raider because I am confident it is only a timed exclusive.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

CladInShadows on 21 January 2015

Castlevania Bloodlines on the Sega Genesis
Contra Hard Corps on the Sega Genesis



sc94597 on 21 January 2015
Dusk said:

Xenoblade is technically different from Xenogears and Xenosaga. It's not a direct sequel, but I get what you are saying. 

Depending on one's theory about the story, Xenosaga and Xenogears might not be in the same universe either.  Some people speculate that Xenogears would be kind of remastered as "episode 5" of Xenosaga (if it had its six episodes instead of what ended up being three.)