Has anyone else noticed the second game in a series is sometimes different from the rest? Is different better? Do we want consistency or variety in our games? In this editorial, I will simply list games that are unlike the rest of the games in the series that happen to be number two. I will point out how they are different, and give my opinion on whether or not different is good in that particular case. (Note: Please keep the previous statement in mind. I simply give my opinions. I'm not saying any particular game sucks in this editorial. So if one of these games just so happens to be one of your all time favorites, please don't flame me because I didn't say it was the best in the series.)Enough rambling! On with the editorial already!

Super Mario Bros. 2

Super Mario Bros. 2 is almost nothing like the other SMB games. I was shocked when I first played this game and couldn't beat enemies by simply jumping on them. Also, this is the only SMB game with a life meter. Yes, you can make your life meter max out to four hits. So if an enemy touches you, you don't always shrink immediately. Finally, this is the only SMB game that lets you play with four different characters instead of just Mario and Luigi. One final note: I recently discovered that our SMB2 is actually a hack of a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. The real SMB2 is actually The Lost Levels in Super Mario All Stars for the SNES.

Is different better? Hmmm, this is a tough call. SMB2 is one of my all time favorite games, though I'm not sure if I like it better than SMB3. Back in the day, I played both through several times. However, I will say without a doubt SMB2 is better than The Lost Levels. The latter is just an insanely difficult version of the original SMB. Well, with that said, I guess different is better in this case. :D

Castlevania 2

Castlevania 2 is also way different than any other Castlevania game. Castlevania 2 is an adventure/quest game as opposed to the linear one level to the next theme. Also, you can raise levels in Castlevania 2 up to five. However, raising a level only allows you to take more damage, it does nothing else. In addition, you can buy items and talk to townspeople. Castlevania 2 is probably the easiest too. Castlevania 2 is almost like a RPG as opposed to just a side-scrolling action game like the others.

Is different better? Most definately! Konami should have made the other Castlevanias like this one. The ability to be able to explore the world at your own leisure is much more fun than beating a level and going on to the next one. Also, the others are a little bit too difficult for my tastes. Castlevania 2 is my second all time favorite game behind Crystalis.

Zelda 2

Zelda 2 is the only Zelda game to feature side-scrolling action. Zelda 2 is much like a side-scrolling RPG, you can gain experience points to raise levels in life, magic, and attack power. Also, this game seems to focus more on action and combat rather than mazes, secrets, and puzzle solving.

Is different better? This one is really a tough call. Some people will tell you the original Zelda is better, while others will tell you Zelda 2 is better. As for me, I thought Zelda 1 was better when I was a younger kid. I could never beat Zelda 2. Now, I like Zelda 2 better. I beat it recently without too much trouble. I guess I didn't like Zelda 2 before because I thought it was too hard. Now I enjoy it more than Zelda 1 because the graphics are better and I like all the RPG elements. I think the eight spells you can learn, as well as the upthrust and downthrust techniques give the game plenty of depth. Is it just me, or does Zelda 2 at times feel somewhat like an Ancient Greek quest? I guess it must be the palaces.

Double Dragon 2

Note: Sorry I don't have a screenshot, but I couldn't find a working rom. Double Dragon 2 is not really that much different than the others. About the only notable difference is the fact that you can attack both in front of you and behind you while facing the same direction.

Is different better? I would have to say yes. This is my favorite Double Dragon game. It's also a great two player cooperative game to play with a friend. The original didn't have a two player cooperative mode and the third is a bit too difficult. This is probably the second best fighting game behind River City Ransom.

Conclusion: For the most part, the game that is different than rest in the series is as good, if not better than the others. However, in some cases they aren't better just because they break the mold, they are simply good games. I guess it all boils down to each individual's taste. I think it's great that sequels break the trend because it gives fans a more diverse selection to choose from. I think we would all get bored if every game in a series were clones of each other. However, we still have the unanswered question: Why is it always the second game that's different?

Back to Editorials