See I see it the other way. If the second installment has a definitive End then the third one is now the third Character has ended up getting thrown into the shit after twice hauling himself out of it. It makes it feel like it is just breaking one thing into three parts but putting huge walls between those three parts that are meant to be a single whole.b3nn3tt said:I agree with what you said about QTEs, they can be a good addition to s gsme, but only if used properly. Unfortunately, the majority of developers don't use them properly, hence why they annoy so very many people. I think that Assassin's Creed II actually used QTEs quite well, because you got several opportunities if you missed one, and you didn't even have to do it at all if you didn't wantmanythings said:QTE's aren't bad, the problem is the way they are used. In God of War they are AMAZING. In most other things they are just pissing annoying.XinfiniteX said:QTE's. This needs to be number 1!
I would take issue with "Never end on a Cliffhanger". If it is a definite trilogy the second game can but the first game should always be a stand alone story.
I do have to take issue with your second point though, because I hate that mindset where the first game can be a stand alone great but the second and third then make no sense without each other. It's common in film trilogies as well, and it annoys me then. If something is definitely part of a trilogy then I have no problem with the endings running into the next games beginning (such as Lord of the Rings, in movie terms). Otherwise, make games work by themselves
Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying one method is the better way but my experience has been ending the second game makes the third a "Here we go again" rather than a continuation.