Why do people think Budokai Tenkaichi 2 was better than BT3?

ShinRogafuken · Post by **ShinRogafuken** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:15 pm

I think that's really stupid, because EVERYTHING about BT3 is better, except maybe the story (depending on your view). BT3 had better controls, slightly better graphics, more gameplay features, more modes, more options, more characters, more stages, more focus on Dragon Ball etc....

Why did BT2 get better reviews than BT3? Is there something I'm not getting here? (Also, I own(ed) both).

IGN'S BT2 Score- 83%
IGN's BT3 Score- 80%

Innagadadavida · Post by **Innagadadavida** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:18 pm

Because its a sequel. It's a third sequel at that. It may be better than Budokai Tenkaichi 2, but it was part of a yearly release. The developers didn't have much time to make it above and beyond expectations, which is what all developers should strive for. sequels will always be criticized more harshly because they're way too easy to pump out if there is an established fan-base. It's not a risk on the part of the publisher, and anytime anybody takes the easy way out, it is always looked down upon.

finnishjuoppo · Post by **finnishjuoppo** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:41 pm

It is just that the first tenkaichi was umm.. decent. the second was far more better, so it was consered as better game then the first one. The third was just an updated version of this great game, and it didn't give the same feeling.

ShinRogafuken · Post by **ShinRogafuken** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:50 pm

Innagadadavida wrote:Because its a sequel. It's a third sequel at that. It may be better than Budokai Tenkaichi 2, but it was part of a yearly release. The developers didn't have much time to make it above and beyond expectations, which is what all developers should strive for. sequels will always be criticized more harshly because they're way too easy to pump out if there is an established fan-base. It's not a risk on the part of the publisher, and anytime anybody takes the easy way out, it is always looked down upon.

That's what I thought...ok, I guess there's no other reason then.

Taku128 · Post by **Taku128** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:03 pm

finnishjuoppo wrote:It is just that the first tenkaichi was umm.. decent. the second was far more better, so it was consered as better game then the first one. The third was just an updated version of this great game, and it didn't give the same feeling.

Sounds like the Legacy of Goku games, but replace "decent" with "horrible".

Leotaku · Post by **Leotaku** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:25 pm

Innagadadavida wrote:sequels will always be criticized more harshly because they're way too easy to pump out if there is an established fan-base. It's not a risk on the part of the publisher, and anytime anybody takes the easy way out, it is always looked down upon.

I'd say it could go either way, depending on the individual. A lot of people might get tired of a series if the sequels are all too similar, yet, if an installment in the series changes quite a bit, there might a lot of people that whine about it being TOO different.

Silent Hill 4 made quite a few changes to previous games. Some people liked it, but I get the feeling that it's generally the black sheep among fans of the series. Then when 0rigins came along, some people liked it, while others said it was too similar to the earlier games.

There'll pretty much always be some people that either don't like that a series installment hasn't changed, or that it's changed too much. It can be hard to find a middle ground. You can't please absolutely everyone. Even some games, like Resident Evil 4 for example, that drastically changed the gameplay of the series and still managed to wow most people has some fans of the series preferring the old style of gameplay.

Shiyonasan · Post by **Shiyonasan** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:16 am

It seems like with fighting games in a series, the second installment is always the one which is praised the most. Super Smash Bros. Melee, Soul Calibur 2, Street Fighter 2; and the list goes on.

I prefer Budokai Tenkaichi 3 over Budokai Tenkaichi 2 personally. Better music, more options for fighting, more stages, and more characters.

Innagadadavida · Post by **Innagadadavida** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:29 am

Did I miss something? Brawl was praised equally if not more than Melee. The only people who dislike brawl are purists.

bkev · Post by **bkev** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:43 am

Innagadadavida wrote:Did I miss something? Brawl was praised equally if not more than Melee. The only people who dislike brawl are purists.

*cough*HE-HEM!*cough* I'm not a purist, but I think melee is a THOUSAND times better than brawl. Better music, better stages (by FAR), more speed, it doesn't take a bajillion hits to kill someone, et cetera.

Innagadadavida · Post by **Innagadadavida** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:09 am

bkev wrote:
Innagadadavida wrote:Did I miss something? Brawl was praised equally if not more than Melee. The only people who dislike brawl are purists.
*cough*HE-HEM!*cough* I'm not a purist, but I think melee is a THOUSAND times better than brawl. Better music, better stages (by FAR), more speed, it doesn't take a bajillion hits to kill someone, et cetera.

Melee purist.

Taku128 · Post by **Taku128** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:19 am

I agree with bkev, but Brawl is easier to be good at and the current game in the franchise so I play it instead of Melee. Brawl was really toned down in some aspects, but it makes it easier for someone who never went competitive in Melee to join the scene, such as myself.

...So Dragon Ball! I liked the lengthier story of the second Sparking better then the third, but I never completed the second Sparking's story mode, unlike the third.

omegacwa · Post by **omegacwa** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:38 pm

Well, in BT2 SSJ Vegeta's move set is dead on accurate to the show( his spirit breaking cannon is an exact replica of what he does to recoome), yet in BT3 they changed it for no reason to some generic crap(elbow smash thing). I know this pissed me off cause that was one of my favorite moves.

Adamant · Post by **Adamant** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:16 pm

Also, you cant just compare review scores between sequels like that, since they were rated as they were released. If the third game absolutely had to get a better score than what was given to the prequel on account of being a better game overall, wouldn't that hold true for the next sequel as well? Would a theoretical "Budokai Tenkaichi 20" have to be given a score of over a 100, because every entry in the series has improved on it's prequel up to this point?

Ratings are just numbers, they're meant to sum up how good the game is according to the review, but they're not meant to be compared to every rating that has ever been given to any game ever released.

This is also why any talk about how "Ocarina of Time is the best game ever because it has the highest total score on Metacritic" is mostly crap. All such things say is "how well it was recieved at the point it came out by those people we've recorded as having reviewed it, none of which use the same review scale".

If you want to kow how good a game is percieved to be, you need to read the reviews, not just look at the numbers.

VenomSymbiote · Post by **VenomSymbiote** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:30 pm

There are vey few things I think are better about BT2 than BT3. First off, with the exception of 2 tracks, I despise all of the music in BT3, wheras in BT2, I loved all the music. Second, the were several things that were obviuosly slacked off on. For example, in BT3's Tournament mode, the Anouncer no longer announces the character's names, as they did in the previous game. Other than that, I think BT3 is a better game.

ShinRogafuken · Post by **ShinRogafuken** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:52 pm

Adamant wrote:Also, you cant just compare review scores between sequels like that, since they were rated as they were released. If the third game absolutely had to get a better score than what was given to the prequel on account of being a better game overall, wouldn't that hold true for the next sequel as well? Would a theoretical "Budokai Tenkaichi 20" have to be given a score of over a 100, because every entry in the series has improved on it's prequel up to this point?

Ratings are just numbers, they're meant to sum up how good the game is according to the review, but they're not meant to be compared to every rating that has ever been given to any game ever released.

This is also why any talk about how "Ocarina of Time is the best game ever because it has the highest total score on Metacritic" is mostly crap. All such things say is "how well it was recieved at the point it came out by those people we've recorded as having reviewed it, none of which use the same review scale".

If you want to kow how good a game is percieved to be, you need to read the reviews, not just look at the numbers.

Yes, of course I read the reviews. While it is true that every sequel "should be better than the last", keep in mind that not all sequels are better than their predecessors (Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine).

But the fact is, Budokai Tenkaichi 3 is a better game than Tenkaichi 2. I thought it should have gotten the same score as Tenkaichi 2 (not necessarily better, but at least equal).

Adamant · Post by **Adamant** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:58 pm

Yes, but they can't just keeping giving games equal or higher scores than old games they're better than, then they'll keep pushing the numbers up every time better games come out.
instead, games are judged on how they stand up to everything else out at the time at the point they are reviewed.
As such, a sequel can get a lower score than it's prequel despite being a better game. It's what happens when you review games at release.

Especially when you're IGN, and your real score meter goes from 75 to 100, with everything lower just being different shades of "horrible, don't buy".

ShinRogafuken · Post by **ShinRogafuken** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:17 pm

Adamant wrote:Yes, but they can't just keeping giving games equal or higher scores than old games they're better than, then they'll keep pushing the numbers up every time better games come out.
instead, games are judged on how they stand up to everything else out at the time at the point they are reviewed.
As such, a sequel can get a lower score than it's prequel despite being a better game. It's what happens when you review games at release.

Especially when you're IGN, and your real score meter goes from 75 to 100, with everything lower just being different shades of "horrible, don't buy".

But not ever sequel is better than the preceding game. At one point a sequel wouldn't have a better score than its predecessor. However, in Tenkaichi 3's case, it was better than Tenkaichi 2.

Innagadadavida · Post by **Innagadadavida** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:22 pm

ShinRogafuken wrote:
Adamant wrote:Yes, but they can't just keeping giving games equal or higher scores than old games they're better than, then they'll keep pushing the numbers up every time better games come out.
instead, games are judged on how they stand up to everything else out at the time at the point they are reviewed.
As such, a sequel can get a lower score than it's prequel despite being a better game. It's what happens when you review games at release.

Especially when you're IGN, and your real score meter goes from 75 to 100, with everything lower just being different shades of "horrible, don't buy".
But not ever sequel is better than the preceding game. At one point a sequel wouldn't have a better score than its predecessor. However, in Tenkaichi 3's case, it was better than Tenkaichi 2.

It was also released a year later in a different atmosphere with different game options and different expectations.

USSJed · Post by **USSJed** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:09 pm

How could anyone like the BT2 story over the BT3 story, is beyond me.

I mean come on, I beat someone in a fight, and the camera just panned up and said something along the lines of;

'Then Goku destroyed *villain* with a spirit bomb, the end'

What the hell was that?

IMO, Budokai 1 has by far the best story of all the DBZ PS2 games, BT3 has the best DBZ-style fighting, and Super DBZ has the best 'proper' fighting.

Adamant · Post by **Adamant** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:00 pm

USSJed wrote:
I mean come on, I beat someone in a fight, and the camera just panned up and said something along the lines of;

'Then Goku destroyed *villain* with a spirit bomb, the end'

What the hell was that?

Heh, I found that less annoying than when you beat the crap out of your opponent, then the narrator shows up and says something about how I was just defeated by this overpowered beast. Especially bad in the Broli story in Sparking Neo, where you fight Broli 8 times or so in a row, and the 7 first battles end with "You were defeated because Broli is too strong. Then someone else came along to fight".

They could at least have given him a crazy high defense, making your attacks barely scratch him, and had "knock off one tenth of his total energy" as your goal.