I had just typed the following message in the 'Best MSX2 game ever - Round 3' discussion, but when I tried to submit, the forum was just closed... So let's try a new forum topic about it. I think it's an interesting topic .

Quote:

>>and second, why does Xak I get such a low score vs Xak II with many posters? Xak I ownz Xak II with originality and it has the best music Micro Cabin created for any game on MSX (ok, maybe I think that's more important than a smoother screen 5 scroll) << Thank you. That was what I tried to state in my own voting list. How is it possible indeed people vote XAKII instead of XAKI.......

Well, it might be because people simply think the second part is much better than the first part? I fully played Xak 1 only two times, and Xak 2 a lot more. Should the first game get higher votes simply because the second one is a sequel? This may go for movies, but it sure doesn't for games. The system, the graphics, the story, the battling, the music... everything is just better in Xak 2 in my opinion.

I agree in games, a sequel doesn't have to mean the first part is better. I like Nemesis 2 more than Nemesis 1, I like King's Valley 2 more than King's Valley 1 etc. etc. But as far as XAK 1 versus XAK 2 is concerned. I don't agree on your opinion the XAK2 music is better. I like the way the PSG is being used in XAK 1 very much.

But that shouldn't be my point. It's on a more abstract level. In XAK 1, the XAK-world has been set. The standards are set. The story, the characters, the music and in some way the system.

Of course, XAK 2 has a lot of technical improvements. That just doesn't do it for me.

I too think that sequels don't necessarily have to be worse (or better for that matter). It all depends whether the game itself is up to scratch. After that, a game has to have an added value through new and meaningful aspects which make it more fun to play. In this case I would have to say that Xak 1 is a very decent if not great game (great music, good story although not as elaborated as Xak2 etc.)

About the setting of the Xak world...
Remember that Xak 1 and 2 are more or less intertwined. (see references to xak 2 in xak 1) . Also the setting is elaborated in Xak 2 (in this game you get lots more background info which was previously unknown; also on the situation before Xak 1). Maybe this has another cause... Maybe Xak 1 and 2 were intended to be a single game like they are on the PC engine.

I think Xak 2 is an overall inprovement to the already great game Xak. But The tower of Gazzel (as a 'sequel' to Xak 2) is a game which I think to be less good. Less story development etc.

Gazzel isn't the real sequel. XAK III for the PC-engine should be.

You could very well ask the same question with regard to Ys. Ys 1 disappeared fairly early in the competition, while Ys 2 is still competing. The original also laid the foundation for the Ys world, but part 2 was so much better that I don't think anyone will argue over this. Ys 3, obviously, is a very different game altogether.

Ys 2 IS a better game than Ys 1... story, music, graphics, gameplay... all improved

Xak 2 is better in gameplay, while Xak 1 has far superior music and story. I even don't like most of Xak 2's music except the 'forest tune' which is a decent tune. And many people I've discussed this with share that opinion

And I agree that sequels don't necessarily should be rated less than their prequels. Most sequels are better with computergames (salamander > all nemesis, maze of galious > knightmare, penguin adventure > antartic adventure) so many examples