Kasz216 said:
I always find it stupid to plan a trilogy... ever. It's unsatisfying. You get to the end of the first game and basically end up with... "Congradulations... please wait 2-8 years and spend $120 more dollars to see the real ending. I mean if you can build off a fully completed story, sure go for it... but damn i hate stuff like Assassains Creed. |
I share a different opinion.
If a studio plans a trilogy it shows dedication and in the end that the studio is in it for the long run. I hate it when I get a game and I love the IP but never see another title launch. I hate this far more then I hate not getting a fullfilling ending. I know franchises I love that have only seen like two games, games like FullAuto and PowerStone. My biggest disapointment was Eternal Darkness, they give you a great game but then they just leave it. I like buying more titles based on my favorite IP's!
I've gotta say, I am far more upset by game companies that release tons of DLC right after the game hits market. Trying to sell you content that should have been included in the origional game. Example GTA4 with Lost and the Damned and Ballad Of Gay Tony gamers have to buy these expansions to get the full content of the game.
Or how about episodic games where they sell each episode for like 10-20$. I hate that far more then getting a trilogy. I like to see IP's developed and milked. Give me some spin-offs and some great sequals and I'm happy! Franchises I would like to use as examples, The Halo trilogy, I remember when Halo2 came out that Bungie said that their was going to be a third and last game completing the trilogy. Today that trilogy has lead to great spin-offs (ODST/Reach) and then you have Legend Of Spyro the trilogy, I never played it but I loved the origional Spyro and Crash trilogies on the PSOne. Trilogies can produce great games and great experiances.\
I wish more studios developed IP's looking at the long run rather then the short run (Single titles)!
-JC7
"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer
