Poll: Neverending story?
- Thread starter blackrave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on the game?
I see no reason why you couldn't have a hugely long series that covers multiple generations of characters or historical eras while still be awesome throughout. I mean, as far as I know it hasn't been done (no, Assassin's Creed fans, no, don't even try) but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
I see no reason why you couldn't have a hugely long series that covers multiple generations of characters or historical eras while still be awesome throughout. I mean, as far as I know it hasn't been done (no, Assassin's Creed fans, no, don't even try) but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
depends, if the games are good and the story is reasonably self contained then I could go forever. Like the Ultima series for example, they are all continuations of the previous games (after 3 anyway)
AC on the other hand bored me after 2.5
AC on the other hand bored me after 2.5
Awwww, I wanted to talk about the movie with the flying dog/dragon yoke.
Hmmm hard to say it depends on the game, I loved God of war 1-3 plus the psp games, but I didn't finish ascension it just bored me to tears.
Ratchet and Clank on the other hand I've played every home console game except for A41 and the new one, the later I will pick up at some point.
Hmmm hard to say it depends on the game, I loved God of war 1-3 plus the psp games, but I didn't finish ascension it just bored me to tears.
Ratchet and Clank on the other hand I've played every home console game except for A41 and the new one, the later I will pick up at some point.
A story arc should start and end in one game .
Example:
Final fantasy 13 did it right
Final fantasy 13-2 did it wrong.
A game should not require a person to have played the previous games to understand the story. But rather the game should be embellished by previous knowledge of the series.
Example:
Final fantasy 13 did it right
Final fantasy 13-2 did it wrong.
A game should not require a person to have played the previous games to understand the story. But rather the game should be embellished by previous knowledge of the series.
It really depends on the games. I lost interest in Assassin's Creed after Brotherhood, but I love the Halo games (with the exception of 4). Some series can suck you in and stay interesting, but a lo of them loose steam once they begin to get rushed out or streamlined.
It really depends. While, ideally, I would like an entire story in one game with future games only having minor references at most to the previous games in the series, I don't think it should be required. We do have to consider the strain it puts on resources, the potential for gameplay to get better as you experience more of the story, and you also have to consider how pacing may be better if you split it up into multiple games.
For instance, Mass Effect was paced in such a way that I seriously doubt it would have been made any better by putting it all into one game, and it likely would have made it worse. Also, it probably would have killed BioWare due to a strain on resources, and we also would have had to suffer through 100+ hours of the first games awful gameplay. That's just one example I can think of.
Ultimately, I'll stop following a series when I lose interest in the story entirely or when I feel that there was adequate closure to the story but the only reason it is continuing is because of some money grab that may or may not have led to a stupid ending in the third game of the series...
For instance, Mass Effect was paced in such a way that I seriously doubt it would have been made any better by putting it all into one game, and it likely would have made it worse. Also, it probably would have killed BioWare due to a strain on resources, and we also would have had to suffer through 100+ hours of the first games awful gameplay. That's just one example I can think of.
Ultimately, I'll stop following a series when I lose interest in the story entirely or when I feel that there was adequate closure to the story but the only reason it is continuing is because of some money grab that may or may not have led to a stupid ending in the third game of the series...
Zhukov said:
.jpg)
OT: I agree with zhukov, depends entirely on the game. HOWEVER, as of late I've been enjoying alot of anime's because a bunch of them are designed with a clear ending in sight, while many western shows do not and are left with horrible endings or none at all, and with that in mind I prefer it be kept between 1-3 games.
(and for the love of god, if you setup an immersive/linear story, have a clear idea of how you want it to end)
I think it depends on the type of story it is telling. Games that lack serious drama in there narrative or are more light hearted, can usually go multiple iterations without getting old. The same can be said for games in which the hero tends to be an adventurer type whose goals might be more personal in nature as this opens up the doors for a myriad of different misadventures (for a non-game related reference, think Cowboy Bebop or Lupin the 3rd) . However, I feel as if world-saving epics are best capped at three games while smaller, character-based stories should usually peak at a single game.
(I also opened this thread hoping to find discussion about the adventures of Bastian and Atreyu...)
(I also opened this thread hoping to find discussion about the adventures of Bastian and Atreyu...)
I came here to say that I have a friend who describes the Neverending Story series as being "more like a neverending nightmare where weird white kids face a parade of mind-crushing horrors while high on cocaine. I mean, really, a flying dragon that's white?"
Anyways, I think games can stretch out their stories across games. I just think that they MUST plan for it. I think the problem with most games that claim to be going for a trilogy or something is that the fantasy of making a trilogy of games gets in the way of the business of making a good game. I can't say this with certainty, but shit like Too Human and Hydrophobia just seemed too up their own asses. Mass Effect did it far better, as did Baldur's Gate.
I do think it's necessary to have a certain end-point though, or you turn into the Madden of non-sports games and it gets ludicrous.
Anyways, I think games can stretch out their stories across games. I just think that they MUST plan for it. I think the problem with most games that claim to be going for a trilogy or something is that the fantasy of making a trilogy of games gets in the way of the business of making a good game. I can't say this with certainty, but shit like Too Human and Hydrophobia just seemed too up their own asses. Mass Effect did it far better, as did Baldur's Gate.
I do think it's necessary to have a certain end-point though, or you turn into the Madden of non-sports games and it gets ludicrous.
On topic, I don't mind if it is done well, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series was all about Strelok, but it was done from a few perspectives (Scar and Major Degtyarev). I am not sure I could go much past three games. Like F.E.A.R. was out of ideas by the third one, I skipped Dead Space 3 as Gears of Snore bromance was not something I wanted to play.Then again I enjoyed Assassin's Creed 3 far more than I did Assassin's Creed 2, and hated Far Cry 2, but loved Far Cry 3, then again they are not exactly the same story.
In trying to think of game series with consistent worlds/stories that went beyond a trilogy that I've played... I came up with a few.
Honorable mention to Final Fantasy, although it doesn't do one consistent world. For the record, I stuck with it for 1 through 9.
Firstly: DragonWarriorQuest, of which I played the first 4 games. After that I couldn't find any localisations and gave up (next thing I know I'm seeing Dragon Quest 8 in game shops, when I never saw 5, 6 and 7 come out).
Second: Phantasy Star. I sort of retroactively played the first two on GBA, but back in the 16-bit era this series was the primary reason I saved lawn-mowing money to buy a Genesis. I was dedicated to Phantasy Star 3 despite its shortcomings... the branching possibilities across generations of protagonists was an amazing concept at the time... Phantasy Star 4... still holds up to this day. It's the Chrono Trigger of the other side. Terrific game.
Too bad about that Online crap. Sad to see a great series die like that... but at least it wasn't as undignified as what Final Fantasy has become.
Next: Star Wars: Dark Forces. Cheesy as the story of Star Wars Chuck Norris is... I love all 4 of these games and I want more. I especially love the titling system and would love to see it get even more convoluted. (Dark Forces, Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight, Dark Forces 3: Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, Dark Forces 4: Jedi Knight 3: Jedi Academy... can I get a Dark Forces 5: Jedi Knight 4: Jedi Academy 2: Desann Strikes Back?)
Finally: Fallout. So far I count 5 titles (1, 2, that Chicago spinoff, that DC spinoff, and the third main title set in Vegas... there are no others to date. No. Shut up. Never happened)... I'm impatient for more and hope it never ends.
So it depends heavily on the franchise, and consistency therein. Most of 'em are one-and-done, sometimes there's a worthy sequel to be had, occasionally a trilogy is called for... but once in a great while a franchise comes along that I'd love to see go on forever.
Honorable mention to Final Fantasy, although it doesn't do one consistent world. For the record, I stuck with it for 1 through 9.
Firstly: Dragon
Second: Phantasy Star. I sort of retroactively played the first two on GBA, but back in the 16-bit era this series was the primary reason I saved lawn-mowing money to buy a Genesis. I was dedicated to Phantasy Star 3 despite its shortcomings... the branching possibilities across generations of protagonists was an amazing concept at the time... Phantasy Star 4... still holds up to this day. It's the Chrono Trigger of the other side. Terrific game.
Too bad about that Online crap. Sad to see a great series die like that... but at least it wasn't as undignified as what Final Fantasy has become.
Next: Star Wars: Dark Forces. Cheesy as the story of Star Wars Chuck Norris is... I love all 4 of these games and I want more. I especially love the titling system and would love to see it get even more convoluted. (Dark Forces, Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight, Dark Forces 3: Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, Dark Forces 4: Jedi Knight 3: Jedi Academy... can I get a Dark Forces 5: Jedi Knight 4: Jedi Academy 2: Desann Strikes Back?)
Finally: Fallout. So far I count 5 titles (1, 2, that Chicago spinoff, that DC spinoff, and the third main title set in Vegas... there are no others to date. No. Shut up. Never happened)... I'm impatient for more and hope it never ends.
So it depends heavily on the franchise, and consistency therein. Most of 'em are one-and-done, sometimes there's a worthy sequel to be had, occasionally a trilogy is called for... but once in a great while a franchise comes along that I'd love to see go on forever.
It depends on the game really. That said when they're making several games in one series I prefer that each game has a different story set in the same universe, maybe with the same characters, maybe with new characters. Have some recurring themes, but make a game that stands up on its own. Especially if this is a game coming out on a different platform than its predecessors. I like the way the Tales series does this. Tales of Symphonia and Tales of Phantasia are set in the same world, they have the same combat system, but the story is unrelated to each other unless you're going into the details to see the connection.
I don't like finishing a game and end up with a cliffhanger, in fact I prefer not to end up with a cliffhanger for anything. A game shouldn't require that you have played the previous game to understand the story. It takes time to beat games and sometimes we might not find out about a series until we hit the sequel.
I don't like finishing a game and end up with a cliffhanger, in fact I prefer not to end up with a cliffhanger for anything. A game shouldn't require that you have played the previous game to understand the story. It takes time to beat games and sometimes we might not find out about a series until we hit the sequel.
Trilogy. At the most. For special bigger world stories. Mostly I just want them to stick to one game. I don't mind recurring characters or settings; Final Fantasy's Ivalce, as an example. The Fallout games are fine as well because that's not a continuous story. But if the story isn't contained it just feels like a waste of time.
I assume this poll has a lot of do with AC4... I can tell you that I lost interest with it strongly after AC2.5. I struggled through 2.75 but then I was done, I couldn't care anymore. I barely cared about 2.75, really. But also this affects Saints Row. I like Saints Row, but they've been trying to tie all the games together like it's an episodic gaming experience and I'm tired of following the adventures of Player and his crew. I couldn't care less about his gang's status anymore, that story is old and boring.
Now an SR game in which I can play a new guy and work my way up the 3rd Street Saint's leadership, that'll be new, and you can even have all the old characters show up. It will be less about leading your gang to greatness and more about forming alliances within the gang itself, making a clique and an eventual grab for power. That sounds like fun.
On a final note: This is probably why I would still enjoy a new TES game. Morrowind was its own story about the Nerevarine's proficy and defeating Dagoth Ur. Oblivion was about Martin's destiny and saving the world from Lord Dagon. Skyrim was about a civil war between the Empire and the local zionists... and also there were some dragons. I'd be all about a new adventure that takes place in High Rock where the Empire has fallen and the Breton are at war with the High Elves. And winning the war will be all about which allies you can make. Or it's in High Rock and the Empire has falled but you're working with the High Elves to unlock the true potential of Nirn as a plane of Oblivion and you have to go against Azura and the other Daedra.
I assume this poll has a lot of do with AC4... I can tell you that I lost interest with it strongly after AC2.5. I struggled through 2.75 but then I was done, I couldn't care anymore. I barely cared about 2.75, really. But also this affects Saints Row. I like Saints Row, but they've been trying to tie all the games together like it's an episodic gaming experience and I'm tired of following the adventures of Player and his crew. I couldn't care less about his gang's status anymore, that story is old and boring.
Now an SR game in which I can play a new guy and work my way up the 3rd Street Saint's leadership, that'll be new, and you can even have all the old characters show up. It will be less about leading your gang to greatness and more about forming alliances within the gang itself, making a clique and an eventual grab for power. That sounds like fun.
On a final note: This is probably why I would still enjoy a new TES game. Morrowind was its own story about the Nerevarine's proficy and defeating Dagoth Ur. Oblivion was about Martin's destiny and saving the world from Lord Dagon. Skyrim was about a civil war between the Empire and the local zionists... and also there were some dragons. I'd be all about a new adventure that takes place in High Rock where the Empire has fallen and the Breton are at war with the High Elves. And winning the war will be all about which allies you can make. Or it's in High Rock and the Empire has falled but you're working with the High Elves to unlock the true potential of Nirn as a plane of Oblivion and you have to go against Azura and the other Daedra.
There is no real standard for this sort of thing, but generally for most forms of media if it goes on longer than a trilogy then it really starts to wear out it's welcome.
Depends on a lot of things.
With games like Final Fantasy or Dragons quest where each game is essentially a self contained story (not including sequels and spinoffs within the franchise) I say keep on doing what you do.
If you have a greater narrative you want to tell like Mass Effect or Xenosaga it tends to work better in a Trilogy. it allows the games to stick to a more or less standard Introduction >> Confrontation >> Resolution "3 act structure" which most people are used to.
That being said, I'd still prefer that each game manage to be a self contained story that is playable and enjoyable independent of whether or not the player has been though the previous stories.
Lastly, you have games that just kinda float on a central theme. Resident Evil being the most notable. they can just keep pumping those games out because the only real thing that needs to happen is to have the cartoonishly evil corporation unleash a new mutagenic zombie plague in an isolated area and boom new Resident Evil game.
The problem with these games is that they tend to develop, what I've come to know as "The Terminator stalemate."
Much like we all know that no matter what happens Skynet is never going to be truly defeated, we all know Umbrella or King Bowser or the Galactic Empire are always going to present a returning threat which tends to weaken the accomplishments of the player over time.
With games like Final Fantasy or Dragons quest where each game is essentially a self contained story (not including sequels and spinoffs within the franchise) I say keep on doing what you do.
If you have a greater narrative you want to tell like Mass Effect or Xenosaga it tends to work better in a Trilogy. it allows the games to stick to a more or less standard Introduction >> Confrontation >> Resolution "3 act structure" which most people are used to.
That being said, I'd still prefer that each game manage to be a self contained story that is playable and enjoyable independent of whether or not the player has been though the previous stories.
Lastly, you have games that just kinda float on a central theme. Resident Evil being the most notable. they can just keep pumping those games out because the only real thing that needs to happen is to have the cartoonishly evil corporation unleash a new mutagenic zombie plague in an isolated area and boom new Resident Evil game.
The problem with these games is that they tend to develop, what I've come to know as "The Terminator stalemate."
Much like we all know that no matter what happens Skynet is never going to be truly defeated, we all know Umbrella or King Bowser or the Galactic Empire are always going to present a returning threat which tends to weaken the accomplishments of the player over time.
One game. Period. Games can be anywhere from 5-100 hours long, so if someone can't tell a complete story in that time frame it's really for the benefit of the bottom line rather than the story. I personally can't stand cliffhangers; I played the first Assassins Creed and quite enjoyed it, but then it ended on a cliffhanger and I haven't played any of the games since. Also, if you aren't ending on a cliffhanger the story probably wasn't planned that far in advanced and the sequel is just going to seem tacked on.
I can't think of any games that had stories spanning more than one game that I thought were better for it, because I don't see how playing a game, waiting a couple years, forgetting parts of the story, and then playing the sequel could possibly make a story better. And if I want to play a game again to re-experience the story I'm not going to want to have to play through more than one game to do so because I usually have had my fill of the series by the end of the game and am ready for something new.
I'm not against sequels set in the same universe(like Elder Scrolls or Fallout) or even having some recurring characters(like Mother 3 or Paper Mario), but it really has to be a self contained story.
I actually can't think of a many games that I've played that have stories that span several games, but other media has a severe problem with not ending. Television in particular has a tendency to run on and on and on until the show has become so stupid and contrived that I can't stand to watch it anymore or to suddenly get cancelled and tack on an ending that they hadn't spent one minute considering prior to cancellation. I can count the amount of shows that had a satisfactory ending on one hand and over half of them are Japanese.
I can't think of any games that had stories spanning more than one game that I thought were better for it, because I don't see how playing a game, waiting a couple years, forgetting parts of the story, and then playing the sequel could possibly make a story better. And if I want to play a game again to re-experience the story I'm not going to want to have to play through more than one game to do so because I usually have had my fill of the series by the end of the game and am ready for something new.
I'm not against sequels set in the same universe(like Elder Scrolls or Fallout) or even having some recurring characters(like Mother 3 or Paper Mario), but it really has to be a self contained story.
I actually can't think of a many games that I've played that have stories that span several games, but other media has a severe problem with not ending. Television in particular has a tendency to run on and on and on until the show has become so stupid and contrived that I can't stand to watch it anymore or to suddenly get cancelled and tack on an ending that they hadn't spent one minute considering prior to cancellation. I can count the amount of shows that had a satisfactory ending on one hand and over half of them are Japanese.
Other: sure, I'd love a sequel or modern remake.
More on topic: endings are over-rated. Look at Mass Effect.
Keep playing as long as the game is good. One misstep in a series is understandable, but after two turkeys in a row, just move elsewhere and finish out the series by watching Let's Play videos on YouTube. For games which are strongly story-driven anyway, Let's Plays are a fine option.
More on topic: endings are over-rated. Look at Mass Effect.
Keep playing as long as the game is good. One misstep in a series is understandable, but after two turkeys in a row, just move elsewhere and finish out the series by watching Let's Play videos on YouTube. For games which are strongly story-driven anyway, Let's Plays are a fine option.
OP, you really should've done an "inb4 it depends" disclaimer!
Anyways.
It depends(>
) on the game. If I find the story engaging and like the games a trilogy is what works best. After that it outstays its welcome. Especially if it's great potential is being ignored(Assassins Creed series).
I still love the God of War games though, in spite of there being six of them. The latest one, Ascension, was pretty fucking bad however.
Anyways.
It depends(>
) on the game. If I find the story engaging and like the games a trilogy is what works best. After that it outstays its welcome. Especially if it's great potential is being ignored(Assassins Creed series).I still love the God of War games though, in spite of there being six of them. The latest one, Ascension, was pretty fucking bad however.