Poll: Would you ever want your favourite game franchise to end?
- Thread starter thejboy88
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Halo should have died the moment Halo: Reach ended. That was both a perfect and well executed ending, and more importantly was not tainted by the poisonous talons of 343 Industries. Everything from 2011 onwards has been ruinous for the series, with the culmination occurring with Halo 4 utterly destroying any potential the series would have had left.
I'd also say Gears of War, but I'm praying that Gears 4 (technically 5) retcons the ending to Gears 3 so we can finally get a proper conclusion to this story. Plus I think even 3 is a great game, just delete Act 5 and it could be as excellent as 1, 2 and Judgment.
I'd also say Gears of War, but I'm praying that Gears 4 (technically 5) retcons the ending to Gears 3 so we can finally get a proper conclusion to this story. Plus I think even 3 is a great game, just delete Act 5 and it could be as excellent as 1, 2 and Judgment.
I said yes, but as more of the individual line, but perhaps not the universe they've established. For example, Dead Space. Isaac should have been killed from the endgame. End the story of that engineer. But the universe you've created is still compelling. Let the series rest, look at how you can change things. Maybe shift it more towards survival, less towards combat, Aliens: Isolation style or something.
There's lots of compelling universes out there that could have many things created in them, outside of the scope of the original. I'm hesitant to see what happens with the new Mass Effect, but they are stepping out and playing with the universe a bit, so who knows.
We don't need another Cover Based Gears shooter right now. But that world would lend itself well to other Genres, and they shouldn't be afraid to explore it. Cycling around creates some more depth, and lets you actually develop each individual section more. Imagine the time skips between events in your favorite shooters being filled with other games of different genres.
There's lots of compelling universes out there that could have many things created in them, outside of the scope of the original. I'm hesitant to see what happens with the new Mass Effect, but they are stepping out and playing with the universe a bit, so who knows.
We don't need another Cover Based Gears shooter right now. But that world would lend itself well to other Genres, and they shouldn't be afraid to explore it. Cycling around creates some more depth, and lets you actually develop each individual section more. Imagine the time skips between events in your favorite shooters being filled with other games of different genres.
Well I would have been happy with Silent Hill stopping at 3 and I hope Konami's CEO dies or something and we can end MGS at Phantom Pain, but we all know the "Intense Metallic Action" Pachinko machine isn't too far off.
I voted "no", but I only voted no because my favorite series is the Fallout series that Bethesda's been doing, which with new settings and keeping at roughly the same point in the timeline could theoretically go on forever. For a game series in which the story is sequential, ending the series is a must.
I'd like it to end on a satisfying narrative conclusion and not continue infinitely for contrived reasons solely to justify sequels (Here's looking at you Halo).
I'd honestly rather have 1-3 games that tell a story with a clear beginning, middle and end and then that's it. Series done.
Better that then to have a long runner that stretches what little narrative they bothered putting in into infinity, contriving more and more unconvincing reasons to keep going as it goes along.
Better to give it a proper ending. Because you could always reboot the franchise later and start an entirely new narrative with similar themes. I actually don't mind that at all, as long as it doesn't try to obscure the original franchise (Add a freaking subtitle to your games developers, for the sake of search engine optimization).
An example of what I mean would be the Doom games. Doom 1 and 2 is one narrative, Doom 3 and Resurrection of Evil is another and Doom 4 is yet another. And it works, because they're all still Doom one way or another without for that sake locking newcomers out of the continuity.
I'd honestly rather have 1-3 games that tell a story with a clear beginning, middle and end and then that's it. Series done.
Better that then to have a long runner that stretches what little narrative they bothered putting in into infinity, contriving more and more unconvincing reasons to keep going as it goes along.
Better to give it a proper ending. Because you could always reboot the franchise later and start an entirely new narrative with similar themes. I actually don't mind that at all, as long as it doesn't try to obscure the original franchise (Add a freaking subtitle to your games developers, for the sake of search engine optimization).
An example of what I mean would be the Doom games. Doom 1 and 2 is one narrative, Doom 3 and Resurrection of Evil is another and Doom 4 is yet another. And it works, because they're all still Doom one way or another without for that sake locking newcomers out of the continuity.
I would have been very happy for King's Bounty to end after Armored Princess. They have gotten progressively worse since then. A few games, probably around 3, are best. Similar types of games can be made, but the lore and expectations start to straight jacket the designers too much when games get up into the 5, 6, 8, or more installments.
Given that the Persona series is connected in the sense of being a series of stories largely in the same universe, but not always with the same characters or reasons things are happening, there is no reason it cannot continue, provided of course that the writers can come up with material. One of the reasons why - just for example - Final Fantasy worked the way it did was that it's a different world with different people and problems, a new plot instead of an addition to the plot that happened before-then. Now, this isn't a perfect method but Persona's way of doing things is similar.
Persona games are relateable, in that it's always our world that this is happening in. It's Earth in a modern period. We don't need to learn as much about the world it's in because we understand it. This is different from Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, where the world has ended and this is what comes after. (SMT: Nocturne is a really great game, though, so play it if you're up to a severe RPG challenge.) The first three Persona games (The first one and BOTH seconds) are highly-connected in story and in the same world, though Persona 3 and up have been still in the same world, but not the same story. Whether the Shadow-related games are going to come to a convergence point or not has yet to be seen, but you see that these formulas work.
Really, when you consider that Shin Megami Tensei, Persona, Digital Devil Saga, and Soul Hackers - Their most-complicated stuff. - have done very well and show how much creative power they have over their corner, the people who work on those things would be the sort of group worthy of continual production of their product over a long period of time. It'd be worth doing.
Persona games are relateable, in that it's always our world that this is happening in. It's Earth in a modern period. We don't need to learn as much about the world it's in because we understand it. This is different from Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, where the world has ended and this is what comes after. (SMT: Nocturne is a really great game, though, so play it if you're up to a severe RPG challenge.) The first three Persona games (The first one and BOTH seconds) are highly-connected in story and in the same world, though Persona 3 and up have been still in the same world, but not the same story. Whether the Shadow-related games are going to come to a convergence point or not has yet to be seen, but you see that these formulas work.
Really, when you consider that Shin Megami Tensei, Persona, Digital Devil Saga, and Soul Hackers - Their most-complicated stuff. - have done very well and show how much creative power they have over their corner, the people who work on those things would be the sort of group worthy of continual production of their product over a long period of time. It'd be worth doing.
I would like to say yes. I hate this cycle of "gotta have a release every ____" that publishers seem to want their every game and franchise to have these days. That's the kind of thinking that gave us 1 or 2 good entries out of dozens of call of duty games. Several bad experiences out of a great idea for an ip like Assassin's Creed. Its the kind of attitude that has made Sonic a joke and even gives generally well put together sequels (like Nintendo properties) the label of "stagnant." I like indies, I like standalone experiences, I want stories to end well and meaningfully, and I want closure. I would like to say yes.
But I'm kidding myself. Like I see so many other people doing. If the unending sequelization of game ip's is making money (lower production costs than new ip's and a built in audience) then the publishers will prioritize doing that. And it's making money, because we are buying the sequelization. We want sequels, we want remakes, we want reboots, and the publishers pay attention to what we do (buy their stuff) and not what we say (we want closure and meaningful standalone experiences.) We want our favorite series to go on forever. I want to see the end of the Metal Gear series, I've been with that franchise since "the truck have begun to move" and really want some closure. But the question was worded "your favorite franchise," and I'm guilty. When they announced Fallout 4 my reaction was "right now, in my eyeballs, all the fallout, right now please!" So no, I don't want it to ever end.
But I'm kidding myself. Like I see so many other people doing. If the unending sequelization of game ip's is making money (lower production costs than new ip's and a built in audience) then the publishers will prioritize doing that. And it's making money, because we are buying the sequelization. We want sequels, we want remakes, we want reboots, and the publishers pay attention to what we do (buy their stuff) and not what we say (we want closure and meaningful standalone experiences.) We want our favorite series to go on forever. I want to see the end of the Metal Gear series, I've been with that franchise since "the truck have begun to move" and really want some closure. But the question was worded "your favorite franchise," and I'm guilty. When they announced Fallout 4 my reaction was "right now, in my eyeballs, all the fallout, right now please!" So no, I don't want it to ever end.
It's ok...we have Grey Goo now. We can pretend that C&C ended with 3 which was still acceptable, we can do that and hold those games in our hearts as we go forward.Barbas said:
I really do not care if they make a hundred Metal Gear games, if it starts to suck then I'll just pretend that the series ended at 5.