Why do we hate the third installment so much?

[Exius Xavarus]

Prince of Persia: Two Thrones
Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves
Devil May Cry 3
Guitar Hero 3
Star Ocean: Till the End of Time
Xenosaga Episode III: Also sprach Zarathustra

I dunno, I kinda like third entries, typically. I only hate a third entry if it actually is, yunno...bad.

 

[Phlakes]

Because it's cool. It was already cool to hate sequels in general, and now that we've been getting a lot of thirds this year, they've become one of the main targets of the gaming hatewagon.

Personally I'm waiting until the next gen consoles are out so we can start hating those even when they have new IPs.

EDIT: But who am I kidding, we already started a long time ago. Maybe we should save some time and hate next-next gen consoles too.

 

[Raggedstar]

I want to defend it by saying the 3rd entries aren't always the worst in a trilogy. But then I look at some of my favourite trilogies aaaaaaand...

-Jak 2 is better than Jak 3
-Sly 2 is better than Sly 3
-Spyro 2 is better than Spyro 3
-Empire Strikes Back is better than Return of the Jedi

...let's cut it short there.

But then there's others.

-Crash 3 is better than Crash 2
-Ratchet and Clank 3 is better than 2
-DMC 3 is better than DMC 2 (never played them but it's one of those things you can just TELL)
-Last Crusade is better than Temple of Doom
-Return of the King is better than Two Towers
-Assassin's Creed 2 is better than 3
-Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time is better than Quest for Booty (well ok, so that one was a bit unfair of a comparison)

Etc etc.

So personally it doesn't have a huge pattern to me.

 

[Blackdoom]

Typically the 3rd installment of a trilogy has to conclude the story which has been told and often times this fails to occur as the 3rd part usually has no real start to it as the start is based off of the previous one and so the plot sort of has to build up to a climax which the predecessors were building up to. Often times the climax in the 3rd installment isn't that satisfying for whatever reason such as being underwhelming compared to expected result.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

Third thing in a series being bad is coincidental I can find several that are amazing.
MGS3
Legend of Zelda Link to the Past
DMC 3
FF 3 for the snes (Though really 6)
God of War 3
Super Mario Bros 3
Resistance 3
ect...

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

They run out of the creative spark, create a world after 2 parts that is simply too hard to close up with finesse. It's a bunch of these things. I think now the public is wary of 3rd parts and may be subconsciously hating part 3s without even knowing it.

 

[Ryotknife]

goes either way. Either the third installment sucks horrendously or saves the series

DMC 3
Farcry 3
fallout 3

etc etc.

 

[The_Scrivener]

1. Inspired new idea that gains traction.
2. Polished and more budget to make original vision realized. Usually the zenith.
3. Pressure, too much money, not enough of the original spark, misguided feeling of infallibility--the break-up phase. This entry ranges anywhere from puttering-across-the-finish-line to unforgivably "what the hell happened?!" horrendous.

 

[Squilookle]

Toy Story 3, anyone?

Far Cry 3?
Back to the Future 3?
Goldfinger?
Timesplitters: Future Perfect?
GTA 3?
Star Wars and LOTR? (extended ROTK ending aside)

While there are some truly terrible 3rd editions of some things, like Mad Max, Pirates of the Carbbean, Driv3r, Matrix, Alien and so on, there are more than enough examples that throw this trend to show it's complete hogwash.

And Mission Impossible shows it's also possible to make an excellent 4th iteration, too.

 

[crimson sickle2]

The OP question is a stereotype that doesn't hold very well. It's not a matter of how third they are, it's what they do with the series. Most third installments can't rely on character development, without introducing new characters, so the characters we love get less time and sometimes feel static. The games/movies that transcend this, and become good sequels, are usually only tangentially related to prior installments, except maybe in gameplay (FF, Megaman, Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Far Cry, etc); or the game/movie moves the focus to a character already integral to the story, but not yet expanded on, accompanied with beneficial changes (DMC with Vergil, MGS with Big Boss, potentially Star Wars with Darth Vader/Emperor).

 

[mrhappy1489]

snip

Dude I'm going to have to call you on something, Bioshock 3 has yet to be released. I admit it looks, Fucking Awesome, but still, you can't put something in a list when it has actually been released. I'm jumping on the Band Wagon for this game and believe it will be great, but you cannot claim it to be a great sequel when it hasn't been released. I agree with the other things you say and thoroughly agree with the other 3rd instalments that you've put up.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I guess I'm the exception.

Dark Knight Rises was excellent, ME3 was great and I even like The Matrix Revolution the most out of all the Matrix movies. Not even kidding.

Although come to think of it, there are even widely accepted exceptions.

Toy Story 3, Far Cry 3, Fallout 3 and many MANY others.

 

[EHKOS]

Because the second one worked out all the kinks from the first one so the second is perfection. The third is pushing the series way to far and changing it too much. Like Jak 3. They had to finish the story (and what a story it was, holy shit) but they really changed up the formula and the game atmosphere felt different.

 

[Fijiman]

I think that that is actually only a small percentage of the time. And most of the time when it does happen it's either because the game actually sucked or we're just kind of tired of the series at that point. Although I can only imagine what the reaction will be if games like Half-Life 3 or Battlefront 3 ever get released.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Speaking for only myself (who else?), I'd say the third entry in a trilogy represents the point where enough is enough. I enjoyed the first one, so I wanted more. The second one gave me more, hopefully with a twist here or there. By the third one, I'm ready to move on. Been there. Done that. This, especially, with regard to gaming.

With film, I think the second entry tends to function as the second act, and the second act is where conflict arises. Good guys lose. Bad guys triumph. Things turn complex and interesting. This is where most stories are most compelling. Thing is: the vast, vast majority of dramatic works chicken the fuck out in the third act, giving "fans" what they think they want - a quaint, happy, *boring* ending where everything works out for the good guys. I'm not saying good endings are impossible, but I do believe you only end up with a "happy ending" if you refuse to finish the story. For the most part, I enjoy a more nuanced conclusion.

 

[Windcaler]

ME3 generally wasnt hated because it was the third installment in a series it was hated because Bioware falsely advertised their product and then treated the community rather poorly when they called them on it.

Although typically they'll usually come up with complete lies in order to justify their whining.

Im sorry but perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you accusing me of creating a lie? or are you talking about the ME 3 movements and fans in general?

 

[The Hero Killer]

Thats not always necessarily true. Sometimes the third installment can be my favorite if its the conclusion of the story. I enjoy the journey I took with the characters and seeing how it all comes together in the end but most people judge the whole of something simply on its ending such as Mass Effect 3. Normally I dont like the first installment of a series since have the story has to be used to introduce the characters and the world, which is something I dont need to see after the first time.

 

[Skeleon]

I very much liked Warcraft 3, the third episode of the original Star Wars trilogy, the third part of the Lord of the Rings movies, the third book in the Harry Potter series (one of my favorites in the entire series, actually), the third book in the Black Oak series (Winter Knight, again one of my favorites in the series). The third episode of the Star Wars sequel trilogy wasn't as bad as the second or first in my view. Et cetera.
I think you're off. It's not that there's something wrong with third installments. It's that sequels often mess it up, regardless which installment it is. So obviously there's a high chance that third installments can suck and people dislike them.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Well, a lot of people have already mentioned Warcraft 3, one of the greatest, if not the great, RTS's of all time. And Sonic 3 and Knuckles is also one of the greatest platformers of all time. So it seems to be more of a trend than a law.

And TDKR was still pretty good.

 

[JagermanXcell]

The "hate" comes through these 2 facts:

1. Will it add to the greatness of the 2nd game/movie, or fall short, become stale, and overall crumble. Ex. Spiderman 3, Dark Knight Rises (it was good... and thats it...), Uncharted 3, ect.
OR! or!...
2. The IP is or will be seriously going down hill if the 3rd game/movie doesn't do something groundbreaking/lifesaving. Ex. Devil May Cry 3, Metal Gear Solid 3, Indiana Jones 3, ect.

Its not that we don't like 3rd installments, in fact I'm happy to see such series expand their lives. Its the 50/50 chance they have to survive that drives people crazy.

Half Kingdom Life Hearts 3.... all you can do is pray people...