Trilogy-itis

Jun 11, 2008
5,331
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.
I don't know if you are let write in full red on other forums but just to let you know it might be something to check out as I am fairly sure that counts as bbcode abuse here or something like that. It might be an old rule but something to check out with a mod.

Anyway no that does not always hold true just because it does for some things does not mean it does for every. For starters this is all mostly opinions and I thought that Halo 2 and 3 were both more or less equal in their mehness as games while Halo 1 is overall the superior game. the sequel improved some aspects but then regressed in others. Lord of The Rings stayed solid for all movies and books with the games being more or less equal as well.

I thought the Second Matrix movie was crap and the first two were good. Crash 1 was good and then I thought that 2 and 3 were on equal terms with 3 being a bit better with no shitty bees. Before I forget I thought Kingdom Hearts 2 was a resounding meh compared to the first but just to say it improve some aspects and failed in others.

Now I know I used movies as examples too but from what I know every tends to like the first and last and dislike the middle entry but even that does not hold true as you are trying to apply a general rule to a subjective matter. It won't ever work or hold true.

Also you did say in another thread you considered yourself a successful inciter of flames(sounds a nice way to put it) of the Escapist so I have wonder about the validity of bring up a little mock rule to discuss on a subjective matter.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
The first one that springs to mind is the Super Mario Bros games for NES (if you count those as a trilogy) with the second one being the weakest and the third one being the best.

Isn't Earthbound the third game in the Mother series as well?

In general, I think the issue is that towards the end of the development cycle developers come up with ideas that they just don't have time to put in the game and after completing a game they think of stuff they should have put in there. So in the second game they polish the controls etc, get their good ideas in and often just nails it.

Then they have very few ideas left, but they have to make a third game because it is a licence to print money. Or, as with Saints Row 3 they just get carried away trying to put all the good stuff in that people praise in forums and forget all the other stuff that is still very important in a game.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
The7Sins said:
Yopaz said:
Yeah, all game reviewers lie about mass Effect 2. In fact all fans of the series who think Mass Effect 2 is better are paid to say good things about it. There's not one single person alive who actually likes Mass Effect 2.
Last I checked my post said MOST not ALL.
So 90% of the reviewers who give it good ratings can't be trusted, but the remaining 10% that give it good reviews can be trusted?
 

James Mann

New member
Feb 25, 2010
46
0
0
Hm... Lets go a bit retro to figure this out:~

Crash 1: Good, Crash 2: Better, Crash 3: Still good. Crash Team Racing: Best...

Well thats no good...

Spyro 1: Good, Spyro 2: Better, Spyro 3: Still Good, every spyro since: Awful.

Thats a bit better...

MOVIES! (we not retro no more btw guys)

Terminator 1: Brilliant, Terminator 2: Worst, Terminator 3: Infinitaly better than 2, not as good as 1. Terminator 4: still not as good, but nice to see arnie got buff again to cameo.

Matrix 1: Good, Matrix 2: Urgh, Matrix 3: OH GOD KILL ME.

Evil Dead 1: Brilliantly Ridiculous. Evil Dead 2: Same. Army of Darkness: Oh god this is awesome.

X-Men 1: Yeah that was good, X-Men 2: Yeah, that was better. X-Men 3: Yeah, that was not good. X-Men Origins: Wolverine: Losing Hope, (HOW COULD YOU DO THAT TO DEADPOOL). X-Men Origins: First Class: "Oh damn thats good"

Ace Ventura 1: Hilarious. Ace Ventura 2: More Hilarious. Ace Ventura (that kid one): You sons of bitches... im gonna kill em i am.

Back to GAMES!

Prince of persia: 1=Good, 2=Bad, 3=Worst.
Age of Empires: 1=Great, 2=Good, 3=Notsogood.
Sims 1=Good(then more good and more good), 2=(whered all my stuff go? then more good and gooderer) 3=(omg what am i meant to do with this? theres nothing!? then better and better, then where the frick is my werewolves?)

Okay. I think thats enough.
 

DirgeNovak

I'm anticipating DmC. Flame me.
Jul 23, 2008
1,645
0
0
believer258 said:
Kakulukia said:
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.
[opinion incoming, no offense intended]

I disagree strongly on Crash and Jak. *snipped for space*
lord.jeff said:
I found the third Jak game to be far better then the second, sure it didn't change up the game completely like the second game but they perfected on the gameplay. One of the main reasons games can decline like that is by that time the team's ready to move on to a new idea and are just trying to pump out one last game, either to close up a story or to fulfill a contract.
I'll expand on my position a bit:[sub]yeah, a lot, in retrospect...[/sub]
Crash Bandicoot 2 took the first game and perfected it. Warped took Crash 2, kept everything that worked without changing it (which is a very good thing), but then added a lot of unnecessary shit that wasn't really much fun: poorly balanced motorbike races, boring plane sequences, and that jetski thing. That didn't make the game bad by any stretch of the word, but since the platforming is top-notch even by today's standards, those seven annoying levels - especially the three races, which were absolutely terrible and obnoxious - that's over 20% of the game, may I remind you, bring the whole package down for me. That's why I enjoy replaying through Crash 2 a lot more than replaying Crash 3, even if the platforming levels and bosses are better in Warped.

Jak 3 has basically the same problem: Jak 2 was amazing, and my absolute favorite PS2-era game. Jak 3 was also great, but again, they added a lot of stuff that just didn't work. The Pac-Man minigame in Vin's lab, the fucking annoying gun courses and the rocket-riding Daxter sequence that lasted far too long spring to mind immediately even though it's been two years since I played that game. I found those things even more annoying than Jak 2's most insanely difficult missions, because those were at least fun. So it's still the same problem: ND strayed from what they did best - i.e. platforming and action - for gimmicky mini-games that ruined the flow of the game.

Both are still very good. I replayed through the Crash Bandicoot trilogy (for there are only three Crash Bandicoot games, no matter what anyone else says) just last month, and I can't wait to replay the J&D trilogy when I loot my parents' house for my old copies and/or when the HD collection comes out.
 

TakerFoxx

New member
Jan 27, 2011
1,125
0
0
James Mann said:
Terminator 1: Brilliant, Terminator 2: Worst, Terminator 3: Infinitaly better than 2, not as good as 1. Terminator 4: still not as good, but nice to see arnie got buff again to cameo
Wait a minute, Terminator 2 was the worst but 3 was infinitely better? Er, what?
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?
Mega Man X3 and Mega Man Zero 3, Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, Metal Gear Solid 3, Grand Theft Auto 3, Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening, Super Mario Bros. 3, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Persona 3...

To sum up: Yeah, plenty. Usually the third game is actually where the developers hit their stride, in my experience.
 

deathbydeath

New member
Jun 28, 2010
1,363
0
0
Yopaz said:
The7Sins said:
Kopikatsu said:
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.
1. Fair enough.

2. Most review sites are bogus and seemingly have developers paying them for good reviews. I rarely trust review scores as many horrid games. (ME2, Final Fantasy 13, Call of Duty, etc.)


3. As said ME2 killed all interest I had in the franchise. I will not get 3 as such it matters not how bad it is. Besides from the news it looks like the combat has gone to the point of making it kinda a Gears clone. That does not impress me. As for the story and if there will be lots of retcons obviously I won't know of them until the game is released but it matters not as the combat being horrid will keep me away. Had I knwon ahead of time Mass Effect 2 had gone down the road it did with the combat I would not have gotten it.
Besides even if it had been a good game the recent BS pulled by EA (SOPA support, Orgin, unfair Orgin bans) have made me boycott them and I will not buy any of there products ever again. And this is coming from someone who was playing the Mass Effect games on console and thereby would not have to deal with Orgin myself. Despite not having to use it I find it so appalling I just can not in good faith give them my money.

4. In the end I have to give Mass Effect 2 credit for 1 good thing it did. It taught me to never ever ever ever preorder a game. I since then and forever more will wait a few weeks to a couple months to hear all about the game's mechanics and story summary before determining if I should buy it.
Yeah, all game reviewers lie about mass Effect 2. In fact all fans of the series who think Mass Effect 2 is better are paid to say good things about it. There's not one single person alive who actually likes Mass Effect 2.
i do, even though i think it's mostly shit
 

Laxman9292

New member
Feb 6, 2009
457
0
0
The7Sins said:
Yopaz said:
Yeah, all game reviewers lie about mass Effect 2. In fact all fans of the series who think Mass Effect 2 is better are paid to say good things about it. There's not one single person alive who actually likes Mass Effect 2.
Last I checked my post said MOST not ALL.
It's not most, it's not even half. There is the odd Kane and Lynch fiasco, but for the most part reviewers are just gamers who managed to get a public that listens to their opinions. Much like yahtzee. He might be popular but he's just as right and wrong about games as any of us. We all have different tastes but just because there's a trend for reviewers to like high profile games doesn't mean they are getting paid. For example, I read Game Informer and for the most part I trust their reviews, but GameSpot? Not so much, or at least not the reviewers reviews.
 

James Mann

New member
Feb 25, 2010
46
0
0
TakerFoxx said:
James Mann said:
Terminator 1: Brilliant, Terminator 2: Worst, Terminator 3: Infinitaly better than 2, not as good as 1. Terminator 4: still not as good, but nice to see arnie got buff again to cameo
Wait a minute, Terminator 2 was the worst but 3 was infinitely better? Er, what?
Anything without that kids voice in it is infinitely better than anything with that kids voice in it.

True story.
 

Cid Silverwing

Paladin of The Light
Jul 27, 2008
3,134
0
0
In addition to trilogy-itis, there's something I like to call the "Capcom syndrome".

I haven't played the Castlevania series, but from perpetuated opinions it sounds like C1 kicked ass, C2 fucked up hard, then C3 went back to the kickass, C4 was a remake of 1 that kicked even more ass, then Symphony of The Night on PS1 completely radicalized the franchise, but then C64 came and double-jumped the shark and never got a good title since.

Something similar happened to Devil May Cry, which I have played. 1 kicked ass, 2 fucked up completely, 3 was what 1 should have been but somehow still dropped the ball with the clunky styles. 4 is what the gameplay should have been but fucked up again because it pulled a Metal Gear Solid 2. Now there's that upcoming "Dmc" atrocity that's going to completely kill the franchise dead.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
NickCaligo42 said:
Kopikatsu said:
So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?
Mega Man X3 and Mega Man Zero 3, Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, Metal Gear Solid 3, Grand Theft Auto 3, Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening, Super Mario Bros. 3, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Persona 3...

To sum up: Yeah, plenty. Usually the third game is actually where the developers hit their stride, in my experience.
None of those are trilogies, though.

Otherwise you could include Skyrim and junk in there, too.
 

Nfritzappa

New member
Apr 1, 2010
323
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
NickCaligo42 said:
Kopikatsu said:
So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?
snip
None of those are trilogies, though.

Otherwise you could include Skyrim and junk in there, too.
Once there's a 3rd entry in one series, it makes it a trilogy.
Metal Gear Solid was a trilogy until the fourth one.


But if you really want to be like that, I'll bite and say Spyro 3 is the best in its PS1 trilogy.
 

BlumiereBleck

New member
Dec 11, 2008
5,402
0
0
Star Wars Episode III was the best in the series...I'll give you that one but how about Halloween III the one without Michael Myers?
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Skullkid4187 said:
Star Wars Episode III was the best in the series...I'll give you that one but how about Halloween III the one without Michael Myers?
I've never seen any of the Halloween movies. =x How was there a movie without Myers, though?