Heroes of Might & Magic III is a classic. I liked Dead Space 3 more than Dead Space 2 because there were less stupid action scenes (like BASE-jumping from the orbit to a 1x1 meter hole). Shin Megami Tensei III (aka Lucifer's Call) is a really good game, TESIII: Morrowind, etc...
Why do we hate the third installment so much?
- Thread starter Ironbat92
- Start date
Because non of those third installments are the third installment we really want.
For your reference, here's a list of the third installments we really want.
Half Life 2 episode 3
Half Life 3
And last but not least...
Dungeon Keeper 3
For your reference, here's a list of the third installments we really want.
Half Life 2 episode 3
Half Life 3
And last but not least...
Dungeon Keeper 3
Fourth, actually.BrotherRool said:
Unless you're just not going to count the other "combat oriented" Metal Gear 2 that Hideo Kojima had nothing to do with.
There are some greats at the ends of trilogies. Sonic 3 & Knuckles, Ratchet & Clank 3... I assume Halo 3 and Jak 3 did pretty well, though I haven't played them, myself.
A lot of people pointed out that you statement is far from the rule, but i will explain it to you anyway.
You are right that a lot of third installments aren't liked the best. Why is simple. They are the ending and the ending is IMPORTANT. A lot of times things are set up as a trilogie and the third installment is supposed to be the peak, the best. Since it's mostly not it gets a lot of dislike, even if it's allright.
That's the very same reason i have to dismiss a lot of the examples for good third installments people are giving, because most of the good ones are just third installments and not the third act of something.
Far Cry 3, has hardly anything to do with the other two storywise, as does morrowind and other examples.
One very good example for an amazing third part is return of the kings, of course, but also A Storm of Swords (Third book of a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)). And i think i kinda get what makes each part good.
The First one has to set the scene and get things rolling.
The second one has to keep things going, up the stakes a bit, keep people excited.
The Third one has do stuff. It has to up the stakes drastically, make stuff happen and generally just be epic.
You are right that a lot of third installments aren't liked the best. Why is simple. They are the ending and the ending is IMPORTANT. A lot of times things are set up as a trilogie and the third installment is supposed to be the peak, the best. Since it's mostly not it gets a lot of dislike, even if it's allright.
That's the very same reason i have to dismiss a lot of the examples for good third installments people are giving, because most of the good ones are just third installments and not the third act of something.
Far Cry 3, has hardly anything to do with the other two storywise, as does morrowind and other examples.
One very good example for an amazing third part is return of the kings, of course, but also A Storm of Swords (Third book of a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)). And i think i kinda get what makes each part good.
The First one has to set the scene and get things rolling.
The second one has to keep things going, up the stakes a bit, keep people excited.
The Third one has do stuff. It has to up the stakes drastically, make stuff happen and generally just be epic.
All the hate about Mass Effect 3 is a circlejerk about the ending. In every other way I think it was better than the previous two installments. The writing, the gameplay, the voice acting, everything was better.
Massive spoilers here.
These moments are among the best in the trilogy, anybody who says ME3 was a bad game obviously hasn't taken into consideration anything but the last 10 minutes.
Massive spoilers here.
Remember Mordin and the genophage mission? Or Thane's death scene? Remember how horribly sad you were after the Thessia mission? Or resolving the Quarian/Geth war (or not...)?
Have you played Assassins Creed Revelations? The good of Screed 2 was brought down in Brotherhood and it only fell off from there.
see i thought apart from a couple of good bits that it was a shit game over all, even excluding the ending, but thanks for lumping me in with the people who only focus on one thingCaptainKoala said:
The writing for most of the game was terrible, exceptions being Palaven?s moon and most (but not all) of Thessia and ofcourse the shooting bottles with Garrus. but apart from that the writting was more or less a joke imo and the combat was annoying because that stupid A button didnt know what to do, granted when the controls worked it was good... when they worked
Mass Effect 1 was as awful (if not more so) as the third one, and the second one wasn't exactly a gift from god.
A better example for the stereotype would be Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, but at least you tried.
A better example for the stereotype would be Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, but at least you tried.
Because it was superfluous and bad?Sexy Devil said:
Why was it even in there? there was no reason for it, does the symbiote always turn people into socially awkward idiots dancing around society? the scene was just so terribly, a lot of people don't find that humorous, just stupid.
Spider Man 3 did suck. Those movies just seemed to go down hill every time they made one. For me, it seems like most trilogies follow this format:
First - Great
Second - Pretty bad compared to the first
Third - Good enough to make up for the second, but still not nearly as good as the first
I will say Spyro: Year of the Dragon was my favorite of the three (don't care at all for post-PS1 Spyro games). Oh, and Skate 3. That seemed like a great way to make a series. First I couldn't really play (got stuck too much without walking), second was great, and the third kept all the greatness of the second and fixed the clunkyness (like with the walking mechanics).
First - Great
Second - Pretty bad compared to the first
Third - Good enough to make up for the second, but still not nearly as good as the first
I will say Spyro: Year of the Dragon was my favorite of the three (don't care at all for post-PS1 Spyro games). Oh, and Skate 3. That seemed like a great way to make a series. First I couldn't really play (got stuck too much without walking), second was great, and the third kept all the greatness of the second and fixed the clunkyness (like with the walking mechanics).
I think with games it has less to do with it being the third entry and more to them coming out to fast. The first game introduces all the characters and abilities and sets up a good plot. The second normally expands on that and is often better. Then the third one gets pushed out and people just get bored of it because its more of the same thing they have been playing. Developers often start to run out of ideas by the third game so it just doesnt feel different enough.
The perfect example of this for me is the god of war series. I thought the first two games were absolutely amazing and while the third one was on the same level I had just grown tired of it. I didnt want more of what made the first two amazing I wanted something different.
The perfect example of this for me is the god of war series. I thought the first two games were absolutely amazing and while the third one was on the same level I had just grown tired of it. I didnt want more of what made the first two amazing I wanted something different.
Yahtzee made reference to this in one of his ZP episodes, though I can't remember which. It all has to do with perception and comparison with the first 2 games. The first game will be solid but have some minor problems and be a little shy with features, not wanting to alienate players with their first installment.ShadowRatchet92 said:
The second game will be the best of the trilogy because the developers come out of their shell and get to experiment a lot more, having all the groundwork done with the first game. Our brains, being the pattern-finding machines that they are, expect the third game to be the best of all, following that trend.
It cannot be so. Developers have exhausted their good ideas, and so most of the time you either get the same thing as the 2nd game, or bad features. Also, the trilogy ends with the 3rd game, and because of modern development cycles becoming ever-shorter to meet deadlines, the end of the game will almost always be of lower quality than the rest of the work done on the game. Most endings will feel rushed, leave loopholes or unresolved conflicts. Things that you thought were important will be left out. It's just reality. Thankfully for developers, this 3rd instalment will be the last in the series, and because of the aforementioned hype coupled with fan loyalty, the 3rd game will sell well regardless. This may also contribute to the quality of the game, although I doubt it even crosses the developers' minds in most cases.
The third installment sucks? But I like Jak 3. And I love SSX 3. And I love Burnout 3. And Rome: Total War was the third Total War game, and that games' amazing. Or what about Ratchet and Clank 3? That game introduced Dr. Nefarious, the series best villain so far.
If it's supposed to be the ending, expectations run unrealistically high.
Things are no longer introduced, but simply expanded on or have come to a relative standstill.
By that time, the original message (pitched in desperation) has simply become a money cow.
Those are three reasons that come to mind in an instant.
Plus, good sequels are just hard to do.
Things are no longer introduced, but simply expanded on or have come to a relative standstill.
By that time, the original message (pitched in desperation) has simply become a money cow.
Those are three reasons that come to mind in an instant.
Plus, good sequels are just hard to do.
Better Examples? Well, ME3 is probably out of place, but I think the other two fit just fine.ShadowRatchet92 said:
The Dark Knight Rises: Thumbs Down, hated it.
Long version (Spoilers):
The "main" plot is a retread of the first movie, just a less logical one. (Psychopathic anarchist suicide bombers, with a really big bomb.). They went from crazy masterminds, to just crazy.
They couldn't kill off Bruce Wayne, instead they had to go for a "Happy Ending".
The battles with Bane were laughable for non-Wrestling fans. The camera angles provided no sense of power, and there did not seem to be much strategy. Batman just fought Bane. In the end, Batman just fought Bane with his fists. It almost seemed to be pure luck that allowed Batman to beat Bane.
Batman was out of shape for most of the movie, and may have never gotten back into proper fighting form (I can't tell). Batman was weak.
It failed to have any emotional impact for me. The villians seemed one dimensional. I didn't care what happened to any of the main characters. Well, I cared a little about Catwoman, as she had an interesting back story. I would say the supporting cast overshadowed the main cast.
They couldn't kill off Bruce Wayne, instead they had to go for a "Happy Ending".
The battles with Bane were laughable for non-Wrestling fans. The camera angles provided no sense of power, and there did not seem to be much strategy. Batman just fought Bane. In the end, Batman just fought Bane with his fists. It almost seemed to be pure luck that allowed Batman to beat Bane.
Batman was out of shape for most of the movie, and may have never gotten back into proper fighting form (I can't tell). Batman was weak.
It failed to have any emotional impact for me. The villians seemed one dimensional. I didn't care what happened to any of the main characters. Well, I cared a little about Catwoman, as she had an interesting back story. I would say the supporting cast overshadowed the main cast.
Spider-Man 3: Thumbs Down.
Long version (Spoilers):
Too much going on to appreciate in a single sitting.
Tobey and that dorky confidence just wasn't entertaining. It wasn't funny, and it didn't convey much other than "here comes doofus". This looked like something Peter Parker would do, but not something I would every want to actually see. Leave it as a single frame of a comic.
Tobey and that dorky confidence just wasn't entertaining. It wasn't funny, and it didn't convey much other than "here comes doofus". This looked like something Peter Parker would do, but not something I would every want to actually see. Leave it as a single frame of a comic.
Mass Effect 3: Decent game, a badly broken ending. IT STILL ISN'T FIXED!
Long version (Spoilers):
I have mixed feelings about the game itself. I didn't like that everybody and their mother seemed to be hitting on me (or was Liara's mother/father/it threatening me?)
The story didn't seem to reach its full potential, although it came painfully close.
Then there is that awful ending. It was extended with the "Extended Cut" DLC, but it wasn't fixed. The entire series seems to have been made JUST to prove the ME3 ending wrong. Its like they started with that ending, said it was the target, and decided to shoot as many plot holes into it as possible with a fully automatic assault rifle.
The new DLC fixed very few problems, mostly just the whole "the galaxy just self destructed" thing, and a minor niggle about Joker retreating, but beyond those it actually introduces new problems.
The story didn't seem to reach its full potential, although it came painfully close.
Then there is that awful ending. It was extended with the "Extended Cut" DLC, but it wasn't fixed. The entire series seems to have been made JUST to prove the ME3 ending wrong. Its like they started with that ending, said it was the target, and decided to shoot as many plot holes into it as possible with a fully automatic assault rifle.
The new DLC fixed very few problems, mostly just the whole "the galaxy just self destructed" thing, and a minor niggle about Joker retreating, but beyond those it actually introduces new problems.
