Poll: Trilogy! :(
- Thread starter Aiden Rebirth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And I stand by that there are only 7 metal gears on consoles not counting spin-offs.shatnershaman said:
(Anyways, there are only 7 games apart of the main series with one being a portable as stated by the almighty wiki.)
You really think there not gonna make another game that makes them a like a quarter of a billion dollars in one night?Richard Groovy Pants said:
If its done right, I've got no problem with it. What I mean by "done right" is that at the end of each game, while you know at the end that there's a bigger problem to solve, there's still a resolution. Mass Effect is a good example, even if
So, by extension, the opposite of this, cliff-hangers (a la Halo 2) are bad.
the whole Saren-zombie was a bit much.
So, by extension, the opposite of this, cliff-hangers (a la Halo 2) are bad.
170 million actually.Aiden Rebirth said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/09/27/tech-halo3-sales.html
Id prefer if, like with movies, the first one was a standalone & then if successful was followed by sequels. Movies like LOTR which were a trilogy from the start work in no small way because it was all filmed in one go. Games don't get made that way & it shows. Though I guess also like with movies, the 'trilogy' angle allows devs/publishers to drag out a story that could quite easily fit in one or two episodes over three instead. More money for them.
I don't think each one is going to be as much of an improvement on graphics as the first.Bluntknife said:
technically not, but I read from gameinformer (I have a subscription and am not gonna bother cancelling), that they're making another FPS in the halo universe (between 2 and 3), also I believe they purposely made it so they could make an actual Halo4 by the extra clip you get from beating legendary.
"The one-two-up-the-wazoo"
Make it a trilogy
Worst offenders: Halo 2, Shenmue 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, Ratchet and Clank: Future, Half life 2, God of War 2
You might recognise this one from the movie industry. The one-two-up-the-wazoo is an advanced technique that ensures players will buy the third game in a series, not by making the second game a well rounded, attractive product but by ending it prematurely so players have to buy (and wait for) the third game to find out how the story ends. The only upside to this technique is that it's slightly more subtle than putting a bear trap in the manual.
The main problem with the one-two, aside from the fact it's a cheap, manipulative trick that's designed to score sales for a possibly hypothetical product that is years away, is that it has a chance of miss-firing and bringing the whole series down with it. If a one-two is done particularly badly the second game will not sell as well as the first which actually reduces the chances of a conclusion to the trilogy being made. That my friends, is pure, Morissette grade, irony.
Add to that the fact that sometimes developers go under, sometimes deservedly and sometimes not (for an example look at Ensemble). So what happens if a developer or publisher goes under during a one-two maneuver? Gamers get shafted that's what.
*When this technique is used on the first game in a potential series it is simply called 'up the wazoo'. For a good example of it going horrendously wrong, see Advent Rising.
[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."
Make it a trilogy
Worst offenders: Halo 2, Shenmue 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, Ratchet and Clank: Future, Half life 2, God of War 2
You might recognise this one from the movie industry. The one-two-up-the-wazoo is an advanced technique that ensures players will buy the third game in a series, not by making the second game a well rounded, attractive product but by ending it prematurely so players have to buy (and wait for) the third game to find out how the story ends. The only upside to this technique is that it's slightly more subtle than putting a bear trap in the manual.
The main problem with the one-two, aside from the fact it's a cheap, manipulative trick that's designed to score sales for a possibly hypothetical product that is years away, is that it has a chance of miss-firing and bringing the whole series down with it. If a one-two is done particularly badly the second game will not sell as well as the first which actually reduces the chances of a conclusion to the trilogy being made. That my friends, is pure, Morissette grade, irony.
Add to that the fact that sometimes developers go under, sometimes deservedly and sometimes not (for an example look at Ensemble). So what happens if a developer or publisher goes under during a one-two maneuver? Gamers get shafted that's what.
*When this technique is used on the first game in a potential series it is simply called 'up the wazoo'. For a good example of it going horrendously wrong, see Advent Rising.
[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."
For the Halo 4 discussion, I heard that this new expansion thing is going to be Bungie's last title in the series. In the future they are going to be made by internal teams at Microsoft.
In most movie trilogies the third movie is usually the crappiest, with Lord of the Rings being the only exception that I can think of.
In most movie trilogies the third movie is usually the crappiest, with Lord of the Rings being the only exception that I can think of.
Really? I could have sworn the Halo was planned to be a trilogy since before it was "Halo". But to not expect a developer to make a sequel to such huge fan reaction is just foolish. If something sells, somebody is going to take it, add a few new shiny details and re-sell it. And if they aren't Nintendo, they get called on it.BBLIZZARD said:
Onto the subject at hand, I've got nothing against trilogies, so long as they're entertaining. Or sequels for that matter. If it's an entertaining game that I will enjoy, I'm not going to be bothered by it being made and sold to me. Of course, then, that brings up the thoughts that'd we get to into making the same games and not new original content.
I do not hate trilogies generally. I have no problem if a game is successful and two sequels for it come out later. What I do dislike is when trilogies are planned ahead of time. That simply leads to them drawing out the game, because they have three games to fill up. Then you just end up with three mediocre games, instead of one good one.
Well, technically, that was just the cybernetic implants reanimating with the absence of flesh. But yeah, I got you. When that happened to me, it kind of undermined all the intensity of killing Saren or getting him to shoot himself.orannis62 said:
When you put it like these trilogies sound like more like episodes (Half Life?) than actual games.Aiden Rebirth said:
I myself don't care as long as the games are good. The one thing about trilogies that do bother me is if the first one bombs then the developer most likely won't release the sequals, and I really hate to leave a story unfinished no matter how bad it is.
I think this sums it up the best. To extrapolate, each game's story should be relatively self-contained. Take Pirates of the Caribbean. The first one was great, and had a conclusive, yet open, ending. The second one? Hell no. What they did was write a huge sequel that they chopped in half. I don't mind cliffhanger endings, but I do mind inconsistency. Don't give us one game/movie whatever that has pretty much all of the loose ends tied up at the end, and then give us half a story the next time around. Trilogies are fine. But write three stories, not two with the second one chopped in half.Arsen said:
On the other side of the coin, we have the planned trilogies. I don't mind these either, hell, I loved Assassin's Creed, and leaving your audience wanting more is just good business sense. But make sure the product is good, because if it isn't, it's not going to sell, and if it doesn't sell, you aren't getting funding for the next two installments, and the fans that you have garnered will be pissed.
A lot of the time I see that the first is good, and then they make a sequel and its as good or better(usually). Then when they make the third one things start to slide. 3 is a magic number, but it is not a lucky number.