There is a Assassins Creed 2. it might be set in the 1700s during the French Revolution.This is only a rumor tho.
Ken Levine's not involved? That's almost as bad as a Deus Ex game without Warren Spector.searanox said:Me too, frankly, unless they decide to set it decades later or something, like System Shock 2. I think that the story gets pretty well resolved at the end, so a sequel is just a pure cash grab (as is the addition of multiplayer, etc. - it's absurd). The fact that Ken Levine isn't even involved with it suggests that a) it won't be quite as good as the first and b) he realises that it can't go anywhere meaningful story-wise in relation to the first game, anyway.scnj said:I think Bioshock should be left as a stand alone game. I don't see where the story can go.
They're going to make both the upcoming TinTin movie and The Hobbit into trilogies.Decoy Doctorpus said:[http://doctorpus.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/42-15440608.jpg]
"Here is your sandwich. What's that? You want bread? No. That comes out next year."
While Assassin's creed was way too short and not wrapped up enough, it doesn't deserve a glance over Halo2.A Trilogy is not that bad, but in my opinion evey game should have some kind of wrapped up ending, not some shitty scene (evil stare at 'Assassin's Creed' and 'Jericho')
jebussaves88 said:A gamwhich set itself up for a sequel (possibly trilogy) was Prey. I had no empathy for the character, as the guy just seemed like a major dick, but the gameplay and the overall story of the sphere was intriguing, and I hope they follow it up with a couple of games. The whole portal gameplay was fun and interesting, and I do occassionally enjoy a game with a gimmick. Obviously Prey 2 would need something new...
...what? don't look at me.
I also await an Assassins Creed sequel, as i would count the first game as one of my favourite of this generation.