How would YOU finish off a trilogy?

Elai · January 28, 2015, 03:35:04 PM

So I've been looking at some "classics" from video game history, and I can't help but notice that there's a definite pattern in trilogies.

The third games usually SUCK. Here are some examples* (which I will undoubtedly get some hate for):

*I don't hate all of these games, nor do all these games suck. They just either a) aren't as good as their predecessors, b) are carbon-copies of their predecessors, or c) completely changed what we would expect. Anyway you stack it up, these games aren't as good or are the same as their predecessors.

Halo 3
Spyro 3: Year of the Dragon
Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal
Jak 3
Uncharted 3
Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald (3rd generation)
Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped
Assassin's Creed III
Batman: Arkham Origins
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3
Mass Effect 3

And there are far more.

So, with this trend in games, I ask you guys, the consumer, how would YOU improve upon a fantastic sequel to finish off a trilogy? Looking forward to your guy's answers.

gats · January 28, 2015, 03:39:32 PM

I want a game where you die at the end and the bad guys win.

Splendid Dust · January 28, 2015, 03:47:57 PM

Quote

Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald (3rd generation)

End yourself

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM

Sometimes they run out of ideas or simply lose interest.

Sometimes they didn't even plan for a threequel--Halo and Pokemon were supposed to end after the first sequels. For Pokemon, Gold and Silver were to coincide with the end of the anime and it's partly why that game had two regions instead of one. For Halo, the original ending wasn't even finished. Both turned out to be so profitable that there was simply no way the series would end there.

Spoiler

but you can shut your whore mouth about RSE

And usually it's tough to keep around the same people you had for the previous games. For Mass Effect 3, Drew Karpyshyn left; Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward lost many key staffers including Jason West and Vince Zampella; Assassin's Creed 3, Jade Raymond, Patrice Désilets, and Jesper Kyd were absent.

Similar thing with movies: Return of the Jedi lost Gary Kurtz; X-Men: The Last Stand lost Bryan Singer.

So having said all of that, it's probably just inevitable that threequels never live up to expectations ;_; There's so much that can happen over a few years that it's probably impossible to avoid disappointing some people. I would finish a trilogy by having non-human entities create the trilogy in the first place >.>

Elai · January 28, 2015, 03:54:49 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM

Sometimes they run out of ideas or simply lose interest.

Sometimes they didn't even plan for a threequel--Halo and Pokemon were supposed to end after the first sequels. For Pokemon, Gold and Silver were to coincide with the end of the anime and it's partly why that game had two regions instead of one. For Halo, the original ending wasn't even finished. Both turned out to be so profitable that there was simply no way the series would end there.

And usually it's tough to keep around the same people you had for the previous games. For Mass Effect 3, Drew Karpyshyn left; Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward lost many key staffers including Jason West and Vince Zampella; Assassin's Creed 3, Jade Raymond, Patrice Désilets, and Jesper Kyd were absent.

Similar thing with movies: Return of the Jedi lost Gary Kurtz; X-Men: The Last Stand lost Bryan Singer.

So what would be the fix? Planning for 3 games? Because games that plan for success is something we all look forward to.

Or just not make trilogies? I seem to remember a company that does that...

Onion · January 28, 2015, 03:54:53 PM

But I was excited for Witcher 3, or maybe you're just playing shitty games, OP.

And Emerald is at least the third, maybe fourth best in the series.

Elai · January 28, 2015, 03:55:50 PM

Quote from: Splendid Dust on January 28, 2015, 03:47:57 PM

Quote
Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald (3rd generation)

End yourself

I still enjoy RSE (and their remakes are fantastic) but they're objectively the "beginning of the end" for Pokemon.

Elai · January 28, 2015, 03:59:05 PM

Quote from: Orion on January 28, 2015, 03:54:53 PM

But I was excited for Witcher 3, or maybe you're just playing shitty games, OP.

Witcher 3 does look good, and may be an instance of a sequel to a sequel done right (as is the case with Budokai Tenkaichi 3). But as a rule, most games third in line are often done poorly for reasons stated below.

Regardless, the point of the post was to see how you people would create a trilogy.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 28, 2015, 03:59:22 PM

Quote from: Snake on January 28, 2015, 03:54:49 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM
Sometimes they run out of ideas or simply lose interest.

Sometimes they didn't even plan for a threequel--Halo and Pokemon were supposed to end after the first sequels. For Pokemon, Gold and Silver were to coincide with the end of the anime and it's partly why that game had two regions instead of one. For Halo, the original ending wasn't even finished. Both turned out to be so profitable that there was simply no way the series would end there.

And usually it's tough to keep around the same people you had for the previous games. For Mass Effect 3, Drew Karpyshyn left; Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward lost many key staffers including Jason West and Vince Zampella; Assassin's Creed 3, Jade Raymond, Patrice Désilets, and Jesper Kyd were absent.

Similar thing with movies: Return of the Jedi lost Gary Kurtz; X-Men: The Last Stand lost Bryan Singer.

So what would be the fix? Planning for 3 games? Because games that plan for success is something we all look forward to.

Or just not make trilogies? I seem to remember a company that does that...

I don't know. It's tough to plan that far ahead for sequels and people can just lose interest or their life circumstances could change >.>

Two parts would seem more logical I guess, and certainly easier to pull off, but for some reason there's the expectation of three parts, not two.

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 04:02:58 PM

Generally, the whole concept of a sequel is dumb and I wish it didn't ever happen. Unless each piece is stand-alone, or only a "spiritual successor". The first part of the story is always where the meat is, in terms of story and themes. Sequels only get made to show us what happens afterward, because that's how much we care about the characters. That's really their only purpose--to expand upon the universe that was created, as if the universe needs to be expanded. And it never does.

BaconShelf · January 28, 2015, 04:03:21 PM

I'd wrap up the main conflict, but make sure there are plot seeds open for future squels and speculation. I'd make the stakes high t the beginning if the game and gradually give it an explosive finale, and make sure the ending isn't a happy one- someone will lose. Not everyone wins.

Elai · January 28, 2015, 04:04:55 PM

Quote from: Jacob G325 on January 28, 2015, 04:03:21 PM

I'd wrap up the main conflict, but make sure there are plot seeds open for future squels and speculation. I'd make the stakes high t the beginning if the game and gradually give it an explosive finale, and make sure the ending isn't a happy one- someone will lose. Not everyone wins.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Girl of Mystery · January 28, 2015, 04:11:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on January 28, 2015, 04:02:58 PM

Generally, the whole concept of a sequel is dumb and I wish it didn't ever happen. Unless each piece is stand-alone, or only a "spiritual successor". The first part of the story is always where the meat is, in terms of story and themes. Sequels only get made to show us what happens afterward, because that's how much we care about the characters. That's really their only purpose--to expand upon the universe that was created, as if the universe needs to be expanded. And it never does.

I know right? How dare they expand their universes beyond a single game and make it something big and interesting.

The nerve!

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 04:12:58 PM

How dare someone have an opinion different than yours.

The nerve!

The first game/book/movie is always interesting enough on its own. Sequels are NEVER needed.

Girl of Mystery · January 28, 2015, 04:14:37 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on January 28, 2015, 04:12:58 PM

How dare someone have an opinion different than yours.

The nerve!

The first game/book/movie is always interesting enough on its own. Sequels are NEVER needed.

Need I direct you to Snake'stop 5 movie thread?

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

~~Are you stupid?~~ Sorry, I already knew the answer to that.
Just because sequels aren't needed doesn't mean people can't still enjoy them.

Notice how in my list, there are no sequels whatsoever.

Girl of Mystery · January 28, 2015, 04:20:58 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on January 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

~~Are you stupid?~~ Sorry, I already knew the answer to that.
Just because sequels aren't needed doesn't mean people can't still enjoy them.

Notice how in my list, there are no sequels whatsoever.

I'm not talking about sequels here. I'm talking about opinions.

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 04:21:45 PM

Well, I'm not. The thread is about sequels, so I suggest you talk about sequels.

big dog · January 28, 2015, 04:26:10 PM

If we didn't have sequels, we wouldn't have the best game of all time, KOTOR 2.

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 04:31:04 PM

I wouldn't have my favorite game of all time, either. That doesn't make sequels necessary, just because I personally happen to adore the game.

g💚jira · January 28, 2015, 05:12:33 PM

While I wouldn't call the idea of a sequel dumb [far from it in fact], Verbatim brings up a good point. If your story is written well a sequel shouldn't be imperative for reasons inside the context of the narrative.

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 05:17:21 PM

And of course, there are stories that are written with sequels in mind, such as Harry Potter and the Hunger Games.

I'm mainly talking about stuff like First Blood--could've been a stand-alone film, but they had a bunch of shitty sequels because the first one was so good. Rambo actually commits suicide in the novel.

Games are weird because it's difficult to tell if they had sequels in mind or not. It's a grey area.

Genghis Khan · January 28, 2015, 05:18:54 PM

Quote from: Fedo 'Rekumee on January 28, 2015, 04:26:10 PM

If we didn't have sequels, we wouldn't have the best game of all time, KOTOR 2.

We wouldn't have:

Majora's Mask
Halo 2
Empire Strikes Back
WWII theme
Terminator 2
Call of Duty 2
Uncharted 2

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 05:21:09 PM

i only liked one of those things lol

RomanGladiator · January 28, 2015, 05:26:36 PM

Leave the ending ambiguous so a sequel trilogy can be made.

Verbatim · January 28, 2015, 05:30:22 PM

Quote from: RomanGladiator on January 28, 2015, 05:26:36 PM

Leave the ending ambiguous so a sequel trilogy can be made.

But then it won't be ambiguous.

Elai · January 28, 2015, 05:33:05 PM

Quote from: Jira on January 28, 2015, 05:12:33 PM

While I wouldn't call the idea of a sequel dumb [far from it in fact], Verbatim brings up a good point. If your story is written well a sequel shouldn't be imperative for reasons inside the context of the narrative.

But there's a difference between telling a complete story and sequel baiting. Watch Dogs is an example of the latter.

Halo CE manages to tell a complete story while leaving room for a sequel. Same with Jak and Daxter. Or Uncharted.

g💚jira · January 28, 2015, 05:37:55 PM

Quote from: Snake on January 28, 2015, 05:33:05 PM

Quote from: Jira on January 28, 2015, 05:12:33 PM
While I wouldn't call the idea of a sequel dumb [far from it in fact], Verbatim brings up a good point. If your story is written well a sequel shouldn't be imperative for reasons inside the context of the narrative.

But there's a difference between telling a complete story and sequel baiting. Watch Dogs is an example of the latter.

Halo CE manages to tell a complete story while leaving room for a sequel. Same with Jak and Daxter. Or Uncharted.

Indeed, but there's nothing in my post that contradicts that. Leaving room for a sequel =/= necessitating a sequel. Something like Halo 2 or 3, where conflicts explored in the game are legitimately left open, is the problem.

Sprungli · January 28, 2015, 06:29:09 PM

I feel as if Borderlands 3 and The Witcher 3 will change that. Not to mention the third Metro game in the works, which I am expecting will blow me away-as instead of linear they will be going back to something closer to STALKER, which is what most of them previously worked on.

Luis · January 28, 2015, 06:31:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob G325 on January 28, 2015, 04:03:21 PM

I'd wrap up the main conflict, but make sure there are plot seeds open for future squels and speculation. I'd make the stakes high t the beginning if the game and gradually give it an explosive finale, and make sure the ending isn't a happy one- someone will lose. Not everyone wins.

Pretty much this