What makes a 'good' game?

[Cobalt Blue]

Replayability and faithfulness. What I mean by faithfulness is making a sequel a true sequel if you insist on making a sequel. I don't have a problem with sequels, but if someone's going to make a sequel, at least make it a real sequel, dammit!

what,

sounds like "yo dawg we herd you like sequels so we name a sequel sequel so you can play sequel while playing sequel"

Shining Force -- Okay, okay, so technically the Shining series was various genres, but wtf? They're massacring it now! Shining Soul? Crap, but playable. But then wtf is Shining Force Neo? That's not a fucking Shining Force game! Shining Force is a tactical RPG! It always has been! It's Shining XXXXXXX, but not Shining Force. Shining + the + [noun] = first-person dungeon crawler. Shining + Force = tactical RPG. Shining + Wisdom = Shining + Soul's inspiration = top-down action RPG. YOU DO NOT CALL IT SHINING FORCE NEO IF IT'S NOT A TACTICAL RPG!!

god forbid developers for trying to innovate and try something new. you seem like the kind of fanboy a sonic discussion thread would polute, and that vipershark would love to spend hours arguing about a completely unrelated subjects like the title's font or the colors of a character's eyes.

Good sequels:
Legend of Zelda -- it's not your old top-down action RPG anymore.
Super Mario -- you're lying to yourself if you say you hated Mario 64, even.
Mega Man -- Well, not counting Battle Network, I liked where Zero took it.
Street Fighter -- as an SNK fan it pains me to say this, but Playmore fucked KOF over and Capcom's actually on the rise now

more like franchises am i right?

PS: also you ban ninja gaiden and shinning force for not being ninja gaiden and shinning force anymore, but then you mention zelda not being a top down action rpg anymore as a "good" sequel.