PixlBit

Super Metroid is one that immediately comes to mind.  

Ratchet and Clank:  Going Commando.

I imagine Super Metroid is in the running for best sequel of all time. Wouldn't be my pick, but I get why people love it. 

Is Going Commando the second game in the R&C series?

Going Commando was the second game.  Up Your Arsenal was the third, and that one could be considered ever more of an improvement over Going Commando.  I just have a soft-spot for Going Commando

I know not all jumps are auto corrected. That any of them are is enough for me to dismiss this element of the game as trivial. I thought to myself why is there even any lip service paid to scaling heights when falling from said heights is not a danger. Might as well have all this stuff 3 feet off the ground. It's just something for people to fidget with, which is a valid approach to game design if people derive some sort of pleasure from it I guess. It is basically the approach most AAA games take these days. For me it's akin to guys with guns who can't hurt you. Thematically contradictory and not very interesting to engage with.

As for your question, that's a big one. Off the top of my head:

Street Figher 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Super Mario 3, Assassin's Creed 2, GTA3, Tekken 2, Final Fantasy 12 (over 10, not the MMO), Street FIghter Alpha 2, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 multiplayer. A lot more I don't have time to think of right now lol

That's fair. Like I said, the fact you respawn right where you were takes the danger out of it either way. I will say I thought the train sequence was fairly tense though, because in some cases I'd have to fight more bad guys again if I did the jump incorrectly. Otherwise though, it's mostly just climbing for the sake of it, and the entertainment value for me comes more from how well the game handles scale. I completely understand where you're coming from though. 

SF 2 is another "best sequel of all time" contender, for sure. Even a bigger leap from the original, since by most accounts I've seen the original wasn't even that good. Then you get to 2 and it's on a legendary level. 

I never really noticed that much in terms of leaps and bounds in Tekken games, but it's been a long time since I really played them. And GTA 3 definitely changed when they opened it up to 3D worlds.

If anything it got me to thinking what makes something fun for people. That's a large topic worthy of analysis. Calling something fidgeting (i.e. manipulating objects without any goal and/or that doesn't involve risk or or is built around win/lose outcomes) may at first seem like a perjorative, and initially I was going to use it as such, but then I decided to consider why you found the platforming fun even though the thrill of courting danger isn't there as it is in similar games. From a psychological perspective, it's obvious that humans derive pleasure from non-demanding or low risk play/manipulation of objects (like a top, or a video game character) in itself, and scientific research has probably come to some conclusions why. Every video game player has probably spent time in a running in circles, throwing grenades at themselves, jumping in place, etc.  Anyway, I think it's important to dissect our notions about video games, notions of fun, quality, the point of various design approaches, etc.

I thought Tekken 1 was a turd, while 2 was great and one of the best fighters around back then. All the Tekkens after 1 were much better than it, actually.

I want to go back and play Tekken now. That was one of the first games I noticed at PlayStation kiosks when they first came out.

As for what makes a game fun, I think the reason I'm ok with some level of auto-pilot is because I just want to reach the end and sometimes that ends up meaning the less in the way the better. That said, I did enjoy the intensity of the train sequence in part because it made me feel like the main character in a big- budget movie, but with some sense of the possibility of failure. 

But then come to think of it, I recently put Horizon on "Story Mode" in order to get through it before November DLC and couldn't stand how it completely eliminated the challenge in that game. That game made combat much more fun by forcing me to think before I acted with a relatively small health bar and much stronger enemies. Once that was gone, so was the tension and so was the fun. 

I think in Uncharted's case, I still find some of that tension in the combat, but not to the frustrating level of the overbearingly shooter-heavy first entry. The platforming is mostly for show, but again the sense of scale has a cinematic quality I enjoy; I just like being able to interact with it on a low level. And I've never felt smart for figuring out video game puzzles (usually I'm annoyed with myself or saying "well that's what I thought you were supposed to do, but I wasn't able to get my character to do that earlier") but they're a nice break from the action.

I think the key word here is balance. I think as Casey has said a couple times, Uncharted 2 is just much more well- balanced than Uncharted 1.

18 chapters?  That's more tha my first novel! Well, at least I didn't have any cover-based shooting in it! :)

Well, your novels probably require a bit more dialogue in all fairness. 

my cut scenes are superb! :p

See, that's why I usually recommend people start with 2. They repeat the twist so in 2 it felt fresh to me when I played it for the first time and there's nothing from the original you need to know both story and gameplay wise. Either way though, it's an incredible game and one of my favorites. As for your question:

Pokemon Gold/Silver, Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando, Crash 2, Super Mario Bros 3, Super Castlevania 4, Mega Man X, Assassin's Creed 2, Zelda: ALttP, Super Metroid, DKC2, Final Fantasy 4, Phatasy Star 4, Street Fighter 2, Soul Calibur, Sonic 2, Tomb Raider Legend, and Smash Bros Melee off the top of my head.

See, I completely understand that, but in a way I'm still glad I played the first one, if not just for comparison's sake. That and I have just enough nueroses to feel compelled to play series in order if they're numbered titles ... And I had the collection, which kind of helped that along.

It's interesting that games as a medium almost always improve with their sequels. I'd actually consider MMX the first of a spinoff series as opposed to a sequel, but great game nonetheless. Melee is definitely ne I consider leaps and bounds above the

Well the thing with Mega Man X is at the time it wasn't made to be a spin-off series, but a sequel/reboot. Or the new direction of the series at least. Things just went weird when Mega Man 7 came in and started muddling with the timeline. Video games are confusing. 

Sequels are usually better in video games. The developers get to fix and improve on the system they created for the first game. By the third game though, they probably are moving into a new engine or thinking about changing it up so much that it becomes a first game again. Gears 3 is an exception to that, though. That series hit it's peak with 3, in my opinion. 

There are many game sequels that improve on their predecessors, but there are two series that stick out in my mind to me as being very significant and drastic improvements.  The first is Mega Man 2.  HUGE improvement over the first game.  The second is the leap of quality from the first Super Smash Bros. game to the second one.

I'm glad someone finally mentioned Mega Man 2.