Trilogy-itis

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
After watching the latest Zero Punctuation, it dawned on me that the second game in a trilogy is almost unanimously the best and the third game is when they start removing features that were present in the second game as well as it just being a weaker game in general.

Uncharted 2 was amazing and had a bunch of different tweaks and skins that you could run through the story with, which was good for a few laughs and added a lot of replay value. Uncharted 3 was a good-bordering-on-fine game and had none of that.

Not a trilogy, but from what I remember the first Tomb Raider game was good, Tomb Raider 2 was great, and 3/4 were pretty bad. Same with Need for Speed, the Spider-man games (Based off the newest movies), etc etc.

So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?
 

Limecake

New member
May 18, 2011
584
0
0
GTA III was where the series started to turn things around or at least become better at what it is they do.

Super Mario 3 for the original NES was groundbreaking and sent the NES off with a high note.

although neither of those are in a trilogy but as time has shown trilogies tend to expand over time.
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
MajorTomServo said:
Off topic, but every time I see the title of this thread, I think it says "Trilogy-tits"
That's Total Recall ;)
 

EmperorSubcutaneous

New member
Dec 22, 2010
857
0
0
I noticed this too. Either the second game/book/movie is the best and the third is the worst (Uncharted, Star Wars), or the first is the best and the quality drops with each installment (Gears of War, Pirates of the Caribbean).

In the first case it's usually because the first entry was sort of experimental and rough, the second built on and perfected what they learned from the first, and the third just tried to go too far because there was nowhere else to go. This was the case with Uncharted.

In the second case, it usually starts off with a flash of brilliant inspiration where everything comes together perfectly, but then they shove out two sequels in order to cash in on its success, which are lacking the inspiration that made the first one so good.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
What? As a general rule the second in a trilogy sucks, at least compared to the others. The first is usually good, that's why they decided to do a trilogy, and the third can be good or it can be bad, depends on the series.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
EmperorSubcutaneous said:
I noticed this too. Either the second game/book/movie is the best and the third is the worst (Uncharted, Star Wars), or the first is the best and the quality drops with each installment (Gears of War, Pirates of the Caribbean).

In the first case it's usually because the first entry was sort of experimental and rough, the second built on and perfected what they learned from the first, and the third just tried to go too far because there was nowhere else to go. This was the case with Uncharted.

In the second case, it usually starts off with a flash of brilliant inspiration where everything comes together perfectly, but then they shove out two sequels in order to cash in on its success, which are lacking the inspiration that made the first one so good.
Maybe VALVe is self-aware?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Trilogyitis is actually an inflammation of the trilogy. I would ask you get your medical diagnoses right.

But 3 is usually where they start resting on their laurels.
 

Otaku World Order

New member
Nov 24, 2011
463
0
0
It's funny that you mention Tomb Raider, cause Tomb Raider's recent trilogy (Legend, Anniversary and Underworld) had the same problem.

I thought Legend was a great game that brought the franchis back to life. By the time we got to Underworld what we got was a point for point rehash of Legend's plot but with several things cut back.
 

ResonanceGames

New member
Feb 25, 2011
732
0
0
Halo 2 was far and away the worst of the 3 in the main arc (soon to be 4, I guess). That campaign was such a joke even Bungie is embarrassed about it.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
The7Sins said:
Kopikatsu said:
After watching the latest Zero Punctuation, it dawned on me that the second game in a trilogy is almost unanimously the best and the third game is when they start removing features that were present in the second game as well as it just being a weaker game in general.

So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?
Mass Effect 2 for various reasons was a horrible game that for me killed the franchise and made me lose all interest in it. (horrid nonsense story, retcons galore, worse combat system, DLC that made the entire main story plot pointless and should have been the 2nd game instead, Cerberus, Shepard dying, Shepard being resurrected, and other more minor things)

As such your opinion the 2nd game in a trilogy is always the best is flawed as Mass Effect 2 proves.
Not always. It says 'almost unanimously'. As in, most people think it's better most of the time. I think Mass Effect 2 was critically acclaimed.

Besides, Mass Effect 3 isn't out yet. Who knows, you might hate 3 so much that your head explodes.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
spartan231490 said:
What? As a general rule the second in a trilogy sucks, at least compared to the others. The first is usually good, that's why they decided to do a trilogy, and the third can be good or it can be bad, depends on the series.
Can you provide some examples? I seriously can't think of anything at the moment where part 2 has been the worst of three installments.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
The7Sins said:
As such your opinion the 2nd game in a trilogy is always the best is flawed as Mass Effect 2 proves.
To be fair, your opinion does not render his opinion invalid.

I quite enjoyed ME2, perhaps even more so than the original. You saying it sucked doesn't really prove anything other than that you didn't like it.
 

x-machina

New member
Sep 14, 2010
401
0
0
First of all, that guy is right Mass Effect 2 sucked donkey balls, I'm certainly not going to buy part 3. But, I think as a general rule this theory holds some water.

Alien = great
Aliens = greater
Aliens 3 = craptacular

Terminator = great
Terminator 2 = great
Terminator 3 = terrible


I realize neither of those series are really trilogies, but that is what always happens when you drag a movie/game idea across 3 or more installments.(If it wasn't originally planned to be a trilogy, which is what most games do.)
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
3
43
Having just finished Uncharted 3, I have to say it is far and away the best in the series. So...myth busted.
Zachary Amaranth said:
Trilogyitis is actually an inflammation of the trilogy. I would ask you get your medical diagnoses right.

But 3 is usually where they start resting on their laurels.
Also, this. Your part 3 might need some fluid drawn out.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
bahumat42 said:
spartan231490 said:
What? As a general rule the second in a trilogy sucks, at least compared to the others. The first is usually good, that's why they decided to do a trilogy, and the third can be good or it can be bad, depends on the series.
thats a film rule, and it works well in that field, because their flogging a horse.

But for games, getting to number 2 means you get the big budget, so you can try some really daring and interesting ideas that push the original concept further, the added support allows for more of a variance, and usually results in a stronger (gameplay wise at least) game.

Now we can argue the story may be shit, but thats only ever a part of the experience,and ultimately should be less important than solid gameplay.
SonicWaffle said:
spartan231490 said:
What? As a general rule the second in a trilogy sucks, at least compared to the others. The first is usually good, that's why they decided to do a trilogy, and the third can be good or it can be bad, depends on the series.
Can you provide some examples? I seriously can't think of anything at the moment where part 2 has been the worst of three installments.
Halo comes to mind. The second was definitely significantly below the other two. However, bahumat42 is correct, it's a rule of films and novels generally, I hadn't really paused to think if it applied as well to games, and honestly I play very few trilogy games. Basically only halo and Dino Crisis, and for Dino Crisis, 2 was the peak of the series by a long shot, so I guess perhaps it makes sense that games don't follow that rule.
 

DirgeNovak

I'm anticipating DmC. Flame me.
Jul 23, 2008
1,645
0
0
I somewhat agree. Naughty Dog's track record in particular does this. Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter and Uncharted all followed this:

First game: Very good, but nothing to write home about.
Second game: Expands on the first, extraordinary.
Third game: Rehash of the second game, still very good but a bit disappointing.