Top 7

We Recommend


  • talleyXIV - September 3, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    Pikmin 2. Even though both games are fantastic, like truly amazing. Not many people knew about Pikmin 1, and actually not a lot of people knew about Pikmin 2 as well... unfortunately. Super Monkey Ball 2.
  • shawksta - September 3, 2012 8:26 p.m.

    The only reason for that is because Pikmin isnt exactly a Mario or Zelda game but thought up by the same person either way. Its an adventure Strategy game which isnt all that noticed by outside people, especially since it was a console game. Otherwise Game reviews and such praised it allot, this list is for games you would forget about in a week or so because of how un-amusing or terrible they were.
  • talleyXIV - September 4, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    Yeah I know Pikmin was loved by critics but it can still be forgettable in some sense. You can have a great game that just doesn't stick out from the crowd for some reason... Okami. I know the list is picking sequels where the first games weren't that good, but you can definitely be good and be forgettable as well. And I didn't love Super Monkey Ball 1, it was good but it wasn't a favorite of mine, but number 2 on another hand... that game is like crack rock to me.
  • brickman409 - September 4, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    before pikmin 3 was announced, I knew some people who didn't even know there was a pikmin 2. it cam out very late in the gamecube's lifetime, and it's a little bit rare to find a copy today
  • tehtimeisnow - September 3, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    this is such an garbege list all these ganes is so horrable seruoisely i woulndt ever play those tranewrecks and u left out modern warefare 3 that is the best sequal of all time
  • Misterscaryface - September 3, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    Holy crap...either this is a troll post or you dropped out in Grade 3. I've never seen so many spelling errors in one post. P.S. MW3 licks. Best game sequel to forgettable first game? Hands down, Street Fighter 2. Gamesradar nailed it this time.
  • Hobogonigal - September 4, 2012 3:36 a.m.

    I see you have taken a 7 month hiatus since your last comment so let me fill you in: He's a troll and has been here for a whlie now (somehow...) There we go, all better.
  • ObliqueZombie - September 3, 2012 7:13 p.m.

    No, seriously, you've been trying to "troll" WAY too hard for FAR too long on TOO many posts. It's getting obvious. Please go back to /v/.
  • aerojonno - September 3, 2012 2:32 p.m.

  • talleyXIV - September 3, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    Just get a good computer or Internet browser you annoying git! No one likes to load 4 different pages to read an article.
  • Sinosaur - September 3, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    I definitely agree with Saints Row 2. I got the double pack when it came out, just figuring it was a good deal for two games that would be pretty okay... Saints Row 1 was a pile of junk that made me wonder if I had made a mistake getting the games at all, but I played through it because I didn't have much better to do... Saints Row 2 was an absolute blast to play, and in many ways, better than Saints Row 3. It felt more substantial, the city was more memorable, and customization took a huge step backward in 3.
  • garnsr - September 3, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    A companion to this list would be games that you weren't so interested in when they came out, or that you waited to get when they got cheaper, then were blown away enough to get the sequel at full price on release. Arkham Asylum was like that, no one seemed to think much about it before it came out, but everyone rushed to Arkham City. Saints Row 2 was just supposed to be a crappy GTA clone, but led to Saints Row 3 doing well out of the gate. Everyone seemed to play Darksiders long after it came out, but everyone picked up Darksiders 2 right away.
  • BladedFalcon - September 3, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    It isn't exactly the same, but there was a top 7 not long ago that was something along the lines of "Top 7 games no one expected to be good" And Arkham Asylum was right on the top.
  • Meleedragon27 - September 3, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    Well, I was originally gonna come in here and mention Assassin's Creed 2, but it seems two other commenters beat me to it. So, instead I'll just say Super Metroid as a sequel to Metroid on the NES. You people can defend the original all you want, but it has aged TERRIBLY to the point where it's borderline unplayable. The bad controls, the overly stingy health system where Samus was super-fragile and health pickups were not only rare but didn't even restore all that much health (made even worse that Samus would respawn with only 20 health upon dying, where most baddies deal about 15 damage), the long corridors that all look identical to each other where navigation was a pain even with a map (and don't even get me started on the lack of maps)... it may have been groundbreaking for 1987, but it's absolutely terrible by today's standards. Super Metroid, on the other hand... now there's a game that's aged wonderfully and fixed almost everything wrong with the original. I remember playing it about two or three years ago and it held up pretty darn well. Seriously, I still think it was one of the best games on the SNES, and it's hard not to see why Retro aped a lot of the mechanics for their games (<3 Metroid Prime). Yes, I'm well aware of Metroid II's existence, but being a portable title on the GB, I never played it. Is it any good? Regardless, I'll still stand by Super Metroid as a great (console) sequel to a now-forgettable game.
  • yonderTheGreat - September 3, 2012 4:23 p.m.

    I don't know what's wrong with you, but normal humans were blown away by AC1's awesomeness. At least, at first. Yes, it's aged terribly. When people who haven't played the series ask me for my opinion, I tell them to watch an LP of it instead of playing it. But that's not what this article is talking about. Before the AC2 was released, the overall feeling about AC1 was "a lot of fun, with great potential, and some huge issues". It certainly wasn't considered "forgettable" by any means. "Aged poorly" does not mean "forgettable" or else the original Half-Life is forgettable, and NO ONE, not even you, thinks that.
  • Meleedragon27 - September 3, 2012 5:30 p.m.

    AC1 was not awesome for its time in the slightest; it was horribly repetitive, the color palette was a cacophony of browns and grays, the Desmond sections felt jarring and intrusive (fun fact: when you keep reminding the player that they're playing a game, it tends to be a big immersion-killer), and the ending was a cliffhanger so obtuse that it left most folk angry and confused. And no, the overall feeling for AC was NOT super-positive. I was there when the game came out, and all I heard was mostly mixed reviews. It may have had some pretty cities and good presentation, but it was the very definition of forgettable: not good enough to be remembered fondly, and not bad enough to warrant angry nerds digging it up to rage about it on Youtube for years to come. It was mediocre, and mediocrity is the very apex of forgettable due to there being nothing truly remarkable (good or bad). Also, games that age poorly are indeed forgettable games; everything positive there was to learn and enjoy from it has been had, and later games have gone on to refine these elements. When the only thing left from the game to learn is "what not to do," then it's time to put it aside and move on to greener pastures.
  • Redeater - September 3, 2012 5:44 p.m.

    I have to agree. AC1 was the most expensive beta test ever. I replayed it recently trying to convince myself it was good. It wasn' all. Don't believe me? Boot it up again.
  • SDHoneymonster - September 4, 2012 4:51 a.m.

    I wasn't blown away by AC1's awesomeness. It's one of the most tedious games I've ever played, so much so that I haven't got round to playing any of the rest of the series because of it. I know they're supposed to improve dramatically, but
  • FOZ - September 3, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    The game has to have been forgettable in the first place, and you said yourself that it was "groundbreaking." So clearly it doesn't belong here. It's no surprise to anyone that plenty of games on the NES had vastly-improved SNES sequels.
  • Meleedragon27 - September 3, 2012 6:01 p.m.

    Whoops, it seems part of me forgot the game had to be unremarkable from the start. To be honest, I wasn't around back in '87, so I'm not sure just what the reception to Metroid really was, but I do know that it's borderline unplayable by today's standards. Also, now that I think about it, you're right about SNES sequels being improved to their NES originals (though at least Mario and Zelda, aged as they are, are at least still playable), but I still think Super Metroid took it to a whole new level: to go from a title that has aged to the point of being borderline unplayable to a game that to this day remains one of the finest 2D games I've ever played is no small feat.
  • Flashinthepan - September 4, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    Metroid II is one of my favorite Game Boy title, well worth checking out on the 3DS' eShop, or whatever it's called.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - September 4, 2012 3:21 p.m.

    u stopped talking to that guy because he had a fursuit fetish... thats pretty dumb and makes pretty much all you say irrelevent.

Showing 61-80 of 108 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.