Being Consistent

[MetalMagpie]

Game Cliché 1: Sequels are often/usually/always worse than the original.

Game Cliché 2: Sequels sometimes/usually/bloody-well-should use their greater budget/development-time/talent-pool to produce something that is vastly better than the original.

You may agree with one/both/none of the above. What I'm wondering is, how many game series manage to stay consistent (and good) over a number of games? (Let's say three or more.)

The example that came to mind for me is the Mass Effect trilogy. All three games have a Metascore between 89 and 96; and forum threads asking which is the "best" of the three seem to end up pretty balanced. (With Mass Effect 3 usually just behind the other two.)

Here's a poll from the Escapist as an example:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.362729-Poll-Which-Mass-Effect-was-the-best

So what do you think? Are the Mass Effect games a consistent series? Can you think of a more consistent one?

NOTE: For the sake of this discussion, let's assume releasing-the-same-damn-game-every-year doesn't count as creating a "consistent series". (Sorry EA Sports.)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Don't use Metascore as an indication of quality, it's rather fallacious.

It doesn't reach the 3 title mark, but Borderlands 2.

Borderlands 2 kept everything that made the original game great and improved on them in every way.

It feels like Borderlands, there's no way you'd ever confuse the game with any other, so it's very consistent in that regard.

 

[DoPo]

The Might & Magic series. The 8 games were pretty good. A shame, 3DO never managed to finish the ninth one - there was some sort of leaked beta version and looked promising, though.

The Warcraft games are doing pretty well, too.

And Half-Life...

(Let's say three or more.)

Oh, right.

 

[MetalMagpie]

And Half-Life...

(Let's say three or more.)

Oh, right.

I count four Half Life games (two full length and two short ones) so I reckon we can allow that.

Don't use Metascore as an indication of quality, it's rather fallacious.

Sorry, I didn't meant to promote Metacritic as any sort of authority on game quality. It's just an easy source of numbers that doesn't make me look biased towards what PC Gamer says.

(Which I'm totally not. _>)

 

[Zantos]

The Might & Magic series. The 8 games were pretty good. A shame, 3DO never managed to finish the ninth one - there was some sort of leaked beta version and looked promising, though.

I have been up for a total of one hour and my day has already been made by this. I can go back to sleep now.

OT: Erm, Red Faction had something good going until apparently the last one. I dunno, I'm tempted to try it anyway after my flatmate who was most vocal about it being bad started complaining they'd turned RF into a linear shooter.

All the Timesplitters were really good too.

 

[Joccaren]

This is an entirely subjective issue. I found the ME series to be terribly inconsistent in quality - the one thing that was consistent was the quality's acceleration towards poor.

Whilst some probably wouldn't agree with me, I found the Bioshock games consistent in quality [Yes, there's only 2, but a third one is coming and I feel it will hold for that too, though I cannot know until I play it]. Each did one or two things better than the other, but the overall quality was, IMO, consistent.

Beyond that... IDK. Most games I play I either haven't played all the prequels to, or have had a shift in quality [Far as I can be bothered remembering its always for the worse] at some point in the series, more often then not with the most recent installment {The first exception to this that comes to mind for me is the Civilization series. Civ 3 showed for me a marked drop in the quality of the game, and I just kept playing Civnet until 4 came out, where the quality resumed its normal place [Slightly rising IMO, but W/E]. 5 Was very different, but with Gods & Kings it maintains the quality of previous titles in my mind, though I will still play 4 more as it is, IMO, the best in the series}.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Sequels can go both ways, and more or less depends on the taste.
I would say ME and DA have gotten worse with sequels while others appreciate the intended simplicity and drama much more, but hey one pair of pants can't fit everyone.

Now there are a lot of consistent games but I can't think of a 3 part series I would truly recommend, shit just gets stale after a while.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I've enjoyed every Uncharted game.
Of course some are better than others,
but I think overall none of them were terrible or took significant dips in quality.

 

[Shadowstar38]

God of War, Rachet & Clank, and the Sly Cooper series all stayed consistantly awesome, and hell, got better with each game. Each gave us new gagets, levels, and added to the story.

I'd also add Sonic for the fact that out of 16 main console releases, only 4 were below good. Actually impressive for a series that lasted this long.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I guess Metal Gear Solid (at least the main series) has stayed fairly consistent, depending on your taste. Even 2 was still really good, despite Raiden's douchey-ness and the batshit crazy plot, but then the plot comes with the territory.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Sly Cooper
Prince of Persia
Devil May Cry

You can't confuse any games in any of these series with another game. They're all beautifully delectable games, too.

 

[aguspal]

Call of duty.


No, I am serious. The fact that 99% of the people wont agree with me, is something I dont give a crap. While we are at it, no, its not the "same thing every year", NOT for me.

Althougt MW2 is the best one of them all. Yeah, NOT COD4.


Now THAT is an unpopular opinion, *****!


-Be happy with your opinion

EDIT: Second Ratchet and Clank, as well. Awesome games.


As for Mass Effect... Well, lets just say that after the utter EPIC FAILURE the Dragon Age: Origins "game" (I can barely call it that) was, I dont wanna have anything to do with Bioware. At all. I am evena bit scared of what kind of retarded, boring ass game they will make next, so no. Again, all of this is IMO. But for me, DA:O= Most boring, souless, lifeless game ever.



Oh yeah another awesome series.



ACE. FUCKING. ATTORNEY. Oh God how could I forget about it? It has up to 5 games, at they are all freaking awesome in their own way. Especially the original trylogy.

 

[Easton Dark]

The Super Smash Brothers games come to mind pretty quickly.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

The Metal Gear Solid games seem to be getting better and better and better, Peace Walker was brilliant.

In response to OP, Mass Effect 2 was the best.

 

[dimensional]

This is an entirely subjective issue.

Indeed and as such is largely pointless everyone is right and wrong huzzah.

For me mario platformers have been largely consistent in quality sure some are better than others but I havent played an awful one. (guess they arent really a series as such though)

Street Fighter has also been consistent in quality ignoring the numerous (and consistent) incremental updates in each numbered installment 2, 3, and 4 in their final iterations have been good even the original iterations are good imo. Oh and im ignoring Street Fighter 1 as I havent played the proper version of it but what I hear it wasnt good.

Disgaea has been a consistently fun and good series for me and judging by popularity series like pokemon and monster hunter have been consistent in quality (or something) to still grab peoples attention and deflect a lot of criticism (personally im not a huge fan of them though).

 

[Squilookle]

I thought the cliche was that game sequels are usually better, because this time they've nailed the engine and physics/mechanics/etc.

As for consistency... Timesplitters? GTA in the III generation? Burnout?

 

[Uriain]

For consistency of a game series, I think the Dawn of War RTS series has been constantly good. I think the Gears of War series have been consistent, some people may not enjoy the series, but they have held status quo/gotten better each game.

Consistency in general, I think is subjective to some degree. I personally like the combat in DAII over DA:O, but prefer the story of DA:O over DAII. So for me, I look at sections of a game/game series to see which sections I find are consistently good/getting better and which are not VS just viewing the game as a whole.

Also, Pokemon, for some reason I find that game to be always entertaining, regardless of its iteration.

 

[teisjm]

Battlefield.
Zelda.
Warcraft (the RTS ones)

 

[DoPo]

Devil May Cry

Isn't DMC 2 regarded as somewhat bad (to put it mildly)? Haven't played it but that's the impression I've been getting from others.

 

[The Wykydtron]

The Ace Attorney games. The original trilogy only gets better between games. Most people will agree that's a fact. I didn't like Apollo Justice as much but that's just me. At least they took a risk to keep the series fresh.

Despite only playing Persona 3 and 4 (with 4 being the first) I can say that the amount of good iteration between 3 and 4 is astonishing. Playing 3 after 4 was like witnessing Persona 4: The Beta game mechanics-wise.

Perhaps the Ass Creed games. After 2 the others are at least somewhat interesting despite them not really accomplishing anything important in the story overall (they could be considered epic timesinks) until Ezio finally dies and we can move on to AC3 and a different setting.

They were still good with the jumpy runaround mechanics but why they decided that Ezio as a character was worth expanding upon throughout his entire lifetime is slightly beyond me. His teenage years and subsequent rise to badassery in 2 was really good don't get me wrong. Just don't see why his character arc needed to be continued across two more games.