The first three Silent Hills. Everything that came afterwards was hit and miss but 1 - 3 were all great. Practically the same goes for for Metal Gear Solid 1 - 3.
What are Gaming greatest trilogies?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A few months ago I would have said this was impossible. EA had a drive to make every game use the Frostbite Engine and Bioware had a big hit in Anthem on the horizon.Samtemdo8 said:
Now they have Respawn Entertainment using the Source Engine for Apex Legends and Unreal 4 with Jedi Fallen Order. Anthem has proven to be somewhat underperforming.
The only thing standing in the way of a Mass Effect Trilogy Remaster would now seem to be Mass Effect 1. ME2 could be reasonably easily be brought into the same combat system as the third game with relatively minor tweaks, given the combat areas are corridors filled with chest high walls. With the first game though it isn't just porting the combat system over it would require remaking most of the game's levels.
ME1 has relatively few chest high walls and has a shield system that is actually effective against enemy fire. Imagine keeping the ME1 level layout of Virmire with the combat system of ME3.
Greatest trilogies? Okay. Admittedly I'm picking and choosing a bit here, but:
-Diablo trilogy (if we treat D1, D2, D3 as being in isolation)
-Halo trilogy
-Sonic the Hedgehog trilogy (STH1, 2, 3&K, or from a narrative standpoint, 2, 3, and S&K - take your pick)
-StarCraft II trilogy (granted, the overall main story is more like a quintet, but WoL, HotS, and LotV form a trilogy, so, it counts)
Plus the "Goodest"
-Advance Wars trilogy (Advance Wars, Advance Wars 2, Advance Wars: Dual Strike)
-Crash Bandicoot original trilogy
-Gears of War trilogy
-Resident Evil original trilogy (if we treat RE 1-3 as being a trilogy, and CV beginning the next arc)
-Warcraft RTS trilogy (though granted, you could consider WC1, 2, and BTDP as a trilogy, and WC3 as the start of a new arc)
And on other comments:
That aside, I see Halo 1-3 as a trilogy, with H3 ending the trilogy, and Reach being a series ender. Of course, Halo 4 threw that idea out the window, but in isolation, the first trilogy is extremely solid. And yes, I do agree that John's fate should have been left ambiguous after H3, not brought back for H4.
-Diablo trilogy (if we treat D1, D2, D3 as being in isolation)
-Halo trilogy
-Sonic the Hedgehog trilogy (STH1, 2, 3&K, or from a narrative standpoint, 2, 3, and S&K - take your pick)
-StarCraft II trilogy (granted, the overall main story is more like a quintet, but WoL, HotS, and LotV form a trilogy, so, it counts)
Plus the "Goodest"
-Advance Wars trilogy (Advance Wars, Advance Wars 2, Advance Wars: Dual Strike)
-Crash Bandicoot original trilogy
-Gears of War trilogy
-Resident Evil original trilogy (if we treat RE 1-3 as being a trilogy, and CV beginning the next arc)
-Warcraft RTS trilogy (though granted, you could consider WC1, 2, and BTDP as a trilogy, and WC3 as the start of a new arc)
And on other comments:
Source on "Flood Trilogy" needed, because that's the first time I've heard the term used.Batou667 said:
That aside, I see Halo 1-3 as a trilogy, with H3 ending the trilogy, and Reach being a series ender. Of course, Halo 4 threw that idea out the window, but in isolation, the first trilogy is extremely solid. And yes, I do agree that John's fate should have been left ambiguous after H3, not brought back for H4.
Yeah, gonna throw my hat in and say that I'm not sure how MGS 1-3 can be construed as a trilogy. Separating MGS from the first two Metal Gear games? Sure. But narratively or mechanically, not sure how MGS 1-3 can be a trilogy in isolation.Chimpzy said:
Thief 1-3: Yeah, i'm counting Deadly Shadows as the good one.
Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas of course
- Okay, so putting my reluctance towards Bethesda aside: Yes you can replace NV with 3, it's a good game. BUT the latter feels more like a direct sequel due to couple of reasons, and there's an argument to be made that it's the final game to the "original" Fallouts, as much as 3 is the opening of the new, East Coast chapter of the franchise.
I'm surprised no one included S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in their post. Not even B-Cell himself?!
Was Clear Sky really that bad?
Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas of course
- Okay, so putting my reluctance towards Bethesda aside: Yes you can replace NV with 3, it's a good game. BUT the latter feels more like a direct sequel due to couple of reasons, and there's an argument to be made that it's the final game to the "original" Fallouts, as much as 3 is the opening of the new, East Coast chapter of the franchise. Ditto.Chimpzy said:
Speaking of Lucas Arts: Monkey Island.Squilookle said:
I'm surprised no one included S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in their post. Not even B-Cell himself?!
Was Clear Sky really that bad?
Alright, you've guys have already picked some good ones. I will add that I never liked Fallout 2, so I'd change that to F1, F3 and NV.
As for new entries: Red Alert, some range of Elder Scrolls (probably Daggerfall, Morrowind Skyrim. Although Skyrim has a huge time distance between the rest of the series), Doom (3 being the weakest but the first 2 ate are fantastic), Far Cry 2 - 4 and maybe Crysis (the first was incredible but the took a strange left turn later on)
As for new entries: Red Alert, some range of Elder Scrolls (probably Daggerfall, Morrowind Skyrim. Although Skyrim has a huge time distance between the rest of the series), Doom (3 being the weakest but the first 2 ate are fantastic), Far Cry 2 - 4 and maybe Crysis (the first was incredible but the took a strange left turn later on)
I feel like most of these are kind of a stretch as to what 'trilogy' means. Super Mario Bros. 1-3? Yeah there are 3 numbered titles in a row, but each game has no continuity to the others and is just as connected to the next 20+ games in the series as the other games in the 'trilogy'.
I can't really think of one I would nominate, to be honest. 3 consecutive games in a series all deserving of being called 'greatest' is a big ask. I feel like a trilogy is more of a movie thing. 2-3 hours can be kind of restrictive for telling a story so it's easy to plan for a little expansion. Also you can bang out the entire trilogy in a couple of years and keep most of the same team working on it. Books work for trilogies too. One author can stay focused on the project and write 3 books in under 5 years. Video games, on the other hand, are long. If you can't tell a complete story in 20-40 hours then you will never be able to accomplish that task regardless of how much time you are given. Video games also take a long time to develop with 3-5 years of development per game you are looking at 9-15 years for the completion of a trilogy. With the turnover rate of working in the games industry you are lucky if anybody who worked on the first installment is still working on the third let alone if they even remember what they were thinking about when making it. None of that is conducive to creating a quality interconnected narrative experience.
Sequels are mostly trash, in general, and video game sequels more so. To make it through 3 games and for them to be connected enough to be labeled a trilogy and have them all be exceptional is something I don't think I've seen as of yet.
I can't really think of one I would nominate, to be honest. 3 consecutive games in a series all deserving of being called 'greatest' is a big ask. I feel like a trilogy is more of a movie thing. 2-3 hours can be kind of restrictive for telling a story so it's easy to plan for a little expansion. Also you can bang out the entire trilogy in a couple of years and keep most of the same team working on it. Books work for trilogies too. One author can stay focused on the project and write 3 books in under 5 years. Video games, on the other hand, are long. If you can't tell a complete story in 20-40 hours then you will never be able to accomplish that task regardless of how much time you are given. Video games also take a long time to develop with 3-5 years of development per game you are looking at 9-15 years for the completion of a trilogy. With the turnover rate of working in the games industry you are lucky if anybody who worked on the first installment is still working on the third let alone if they even remember what they were thinking about when making it. None of that is conducive to creating a quality interconnected narrative experience.
Sequels are mostly trash, in general, and video game sequels more so. To make it through 3 games and for them to be connected enough to be labeled a trilogy and have them all be exceptional is something I don't think I've seen as of yet.
The Sly Cooper trilogy. It's almost like three satisfying seasons of your favourite Saturday morning cartoon show wrapping up in the most satisfying manner possible. We just have to ignore the fourth game that wasn't made by Sucker Punch.
Hardly a trilogy. one main game followed by 2 stand alone Expansions. and yes clear sky was pretty bad.MrCalavera said:
That is on my list! High five!Smithnikov said:
Sonic 1-3&K
Crash Trilogy
Need for Spreed I-III
Need for Speed Underground 1-2 & Most Wanted (2005) - The main character is implied to be the same protagonist from the Underground series and Most Wanted takes place after U2.
Spyro Trilogy - Though I never caught on to it.
Resident Evil 1-3 (PSX Trilogy)
Wario Land 1-3 - Though I never cared much for 2 & 3. 4 I always found better than those sequels.
Sengoku Basara and it's various updated re-releases.
Serious Sam - The First Encounter, Second Encounter, and Serious Sam II. BFE felt generic and not that fun to play after the first run.
Doom - This varies from person to person. Doom, Doom II, and Doom 3. Doom, Doom II, and Doom 64. Or Doom, Doom II, and Final Doom. Me personally, I prefer the 1st option.
Silent Hill 1-3.
Streets of Rage 1-3
Street Fighter - Discount the first game, because it is ass. The trilogy I am referring to is II, III, & IV.
Street Fighter Alpha Series - Do note that the 1st Alpha game is so obsolete now even though it's good quality.
God of War Trilogy - Game play only as the story got really shitty and Kratos became in hateful II & III. God of War 4 fixed that problem.
Bayonetta 1-3 - Shut up! I know 3 ain't out yet, but I am making it count.
Devil May Cry 1, 3, & 4 - There is no 2, and the reboot does not count. 5 has the best gameplay now. So if it were to be revised, the trilogy in this case would be 3, 4, and 5.
Ghosts N Goblins - The trilogy in this case is the two arcade games and SNES sequel. Hard to fucking beat!
Burnout 3, Revenge, and Paradise - The first two games were just simple arcade racers without that much to standout.
House of the Dead 1-3
Time Crisis 1-3
Virtua Cop 1-3
Uncharted Trilogy - I like 4, but it felt like a fanfic with Nate's brother story wise. I put this on the list, and I am not even a hardcore fan.
Tekken 1-3
Donkey Kong Country SNES - 3 is the weakest of the trilogy.
Kirby's Dreamland 1-3
Marvel vs. Capcom 1-3 - We do not talk about infinite.
Ooh goody, I get to ruin somebody's day by nitpicking!
Doom 1-3? Doesn't quite work, because 3's segregated from its predecessors mechanically and narratively. Maybe something like Doom 1-2-X, but what is "X," in this case? I guess arguably Doom 64 in that it provides a definitive ending of sorts for Doomguy (least until Doom 2016), but if one stopped at Final Doom, how much "narrative" would you lose? It would still be a trilogy regardless.
Nominating any kind of "Doom trilogy" is contingent on being highly selective.CoCage said:
Doom 1-3? Doesn't quite work, because 3's segregated from its predecessors mechanically and narratively. Maybe something like Doom 1-2-X, but what is "X," in this case? I guess arguably Doom 64 in that it provides a definitive ending of sorts for Doomguy (least until Doom 2016), but if one stopped at Final Doom, how much "narrative" would you lose? It would still be a trilogy regardless.
Um, maybe...I guess you could simply play 1-3 and leave it at that, but...
Really not sure how this works. The Time Crisis games barely share continuity with each other - the only thing that unites them is Wild Dog (to the point where it's just tired now), and the occasional appearance from Richard Miller or other legacy characters. But there's not really anything linking TC 1-3 as opposed to TC 1-4 or whatnot.
Interestingly, you could classify MGS3, Peace Walker and MGSV as the "Big Boss" prequel Trilogy, though to make it contiguous you'd have ignore MGS4. And there's the issue that MGSV has some serious flaws.Chimpzy said:
Portable Ops apparently isn't canon, or if it is, only in the very broadest strokes. I believe there's somewhere that Kojima outright says this because he wasn't involved.Hawki said:
However, the fact none of the games released after it bother to reference it save for a single line in the beginning of Peace Walker, while Peace Walker is referenced extensively in MGSV, kinda says it all. Ground Zeros almost requires you have some idea what happened in Peace Walker to really get understand it and it's hard to care about why Snake is infiltrating NOT-GUANTANAMO if without knowing who Chico and Paz are. Though if you did play PW, you still may not care about Chico and Paz(especially if you got to the True End where it's revealed Paz was a spy who tried to kill Big Boss). It does put Millers whining at the end of GZ in perspective though(Gee Miller, who was in bed with Cipher the whole time during Peace Walker and never told Snake until the end? That's right, it was you).
Ultima the Avatar Trilogy (4-6, and don't start quibbling that, because it has basically nothing in common with 1-3)
Warcraft 1-3
I actually have a hard time coming up with others. There seems to quite the trend of either having the obligatory underwhelming or horrible misstep ending, or the wobbly as hell middle episode.
I'd be willing to throw in Quest for Glory, though I'd include 4 which kind of makes it a different beast.
Y'all are crazy on the Dark Souls, even putting aside my less impressed assessment of them on the whole. 2 has literally nothing to do with 1 and 3, and even 3 is more of a soft reboot then a sequel proper.
Warcraft 1-3
I actually have a hard time coming up with others. There seems to quite the trend of either having the obligatory underwhelming or horrible misstep ending, or the wobbly as hell middle episode.
I'd be willing to throw in Quest for Glory, though I'd include 4 which kind of makes it a different beast.
Y'all are crazy on the Dark Souls, even putting aside my less impressed assessment of them on the whole. 2 has literally nothing to do with 1 and 3, and even 3 is more of a soft reboot then a sequel proper.
For Doom, that's why I said it varies. Every person I ever talked too chose Doom 3 or Doom 64 95% of the time to be part of their trilogy.Hawki said:
Do not misunderstand. I love the House of the Dead series. 4 is my favorite and I have to find my nearest Dave and Busters to play 5. I just meant in terms of best trilogy during the the time period. All three games are still fun to play and improved in gameplay, graphics, and voice acting (in 3 only, but 4 has the best voice acting).
Time Crisis does have continuity in the form of Wild Dog as he ages in each game. In fact, 5 has the two heroes from TC2 in it the game. One as a hero and the other as a villain.
<spoiler=Mega spoilers for those have not played TC5>Though the real villain is Robert (guy in blue jacket) being the real traitor to the VSSE, and Keith (guy in pink/red) the actual good guy. That was a twist I did not see coming and makes going back to play 2 sad now.
But my rain reason for linking the TC trilogy is mainly in gameplay and graphics (especially when playing the PS2 ports of 2 & 3 that added so much content and bonus extras). TC4 is a good game, but it felt more like an HD version of 3, and 5 I found somewhat underwhelming. The plot twist being the exception.
You did not ruin my day by nitpicking.
Sly Cooper trilogy. Fun engaging Platformers with a deep and meaningful story. It's a shame that they never made a fourth one...