Poll: Trilogy! :(
- Thread starter Aiden Rebirth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What, exactly, is Morissette grade irony? I mean I know what irony is, i have an inkling which Morissette you are talking about, just a bit confused with the connection there.Decoy Doctorpus said:
also, I'm a little upset about this whole starcraft II trilogy garbage. Am I right in understanding there will only be a terran campaign included with the game? if this is the case, I call shenannigans. If theres an extra long terran, and normal zerg and protoss, and each expansion gives normal campaigns and one extra long campaign for the preferred species, fine. if only one campaign per expansion, SHENANNIGANS
Alainis Morriset wrote a song called ironic in which nothing in it was ironic, which makes the song title/theme ironic in it self. so he is comparing it to that mind f**k!thiosk said:
Yes, that was mentioned somewhere else in this thread.The_Deleted said:
Personally, I don't mind trilogies, as by this stage the developers know what the public likes, and the third title is an improvement on the first two.
For instance:
Burnout: Kinda sucked, good crash physics used only when you crashed (which was never good)
Burnout 2: Point of Impact: Pretty good, great crash physics that had a use (somewhat detached from the main game)
Burnout 3: Takedown: Awesome, with wicked crash physics used in the main races with the new Takedown mechanic.
Devil May Cry: Pretty cool. Somewhat hard. Received well.
Devil May Cry 2: Less cool. Somewhat easy. Received poorly.
Devil May Cry 3: Very cool. Very hard. Received very well.
EDIT: What is a 'triology'?
I think our learned friend was getting at the spelling rather than the definition.Onmi said:
Or have I failed to see the sarcasm in your reply..?
There is one thing I hate about trilogies. When there is a trilogy of games that are only 4-6 hours each, that could have just as easily been a 12-18 hour single game. Yes, the development time would be longer, but at least we'd be getting our money's worth, instead of shelling out £40 at a time for a half arsed product.
If it's pulled off good then sure. Just don't build a game on the idea of making it a trilogy, build it on the idea of making a good game at first but leave space to expand if it succeeds. Somehow I feel that's why the storyline in Mirror's Edge was so messy, it was originally supposed to feature one storyline, but it was changed (most likely to be able to fit in 2 more) and it turned out extremely messy. On the other hand, some games (and movies) fall because they tried to expand a storyline that was unexpandable (Pirates of the Caribbean anyone?). So it's a tricky thing to pull off correctly ^^
I think the real question here is why the fuck do we have quadrilogys. they are crap look at the 4th alien movie that was pants.
I don't hate trilogies because I like sequels. However, I am not a big fan of cliffhanger endings, and pretty much every single game that's meant to be a trilogy in the end winds up with one. It's really quite annoying. The least I think I can ask you for beating your game is some resolution, not a lame "finish the fight!" moment.
Why always trilogy....can't we have a closed of epic with 2, 4 or 18 Games?
As for the Topic, i don't really hate trilogy's, but i hate endings that are just cliffhangers without a sense of closure.
It is okay to end with a big cliffhanger if the game is episodic and there is a conclusion coming soon after (NOT like you, Valve), and it is okay to have something in the end that hints at what will happen next (Metal Gear Solid is probably the best example for that), but in my games, i want to accomplish something in playing through the game.
I don't mind open endings in Movies, but in Games i feel like i "worked" my way through the story and deserve some kind of "Thank you for playing" by having a story where at least some parts of it are finished by the end of the game.
As for the Topic, i don't really hate trilogy's, but i hate endings that are just cliffhangers without a sense of closure.
It is okay to end with a big cliffhanger if the game is episodic and there is a conclusion coming soon after (NOT like you, Valve), and it is okay to have something in the end that hints at what will happen next (Metal Gear Solid is probably the best example for that), but in my games, i want to accomplish something in playing through the game.
I don't mind open endings in Movies, but in Games i feel like i "worked" my way through the story and deserve some kind of "Thank you for playing" by having a story where at least some parts of it are finished by the end of the game.
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:
Yeah to bad there is a Bioshock 2. I quote from wiki so I could be wrong.scnj said:
A 2K developer stated that the game "is part of a prequel and at the same time is a sequel."
So id guess id be building Rapture and everyone goin fking nuts. then the 3rd game would have everyone in space with Space Rapture.
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')
I don´t like the trend to make open endings. It always feels very unsatisfying. Take the 'Sly Cooper' games: They show you how to make games with a finished plot and still being able to make references or story arcs that originated in the first game.
I don´t like the trend to make open endings. It always feels very unsatisfying. Take the 'Sly Cooper' games: They show you how to make games with a finished plot and still being able to make references or story arcs that originated in the first game.
Yes, Bioshock should have ended with the first game (don´t get me wrong, I LOVE Biohock)
But I can see a story window for Bioschock 2. Take the good ending of the first game and remember that it took place at two different times. Maybe someone brought a nasty virus or some other kind of mutation with them?
But I can see a story window for Bioschock 2. Take the good ending of the first game and remember that it took place at two different times. Maybe someone brought a nasty virus or some other kind of mutation with them?