While I am a huge fan of a standalone title, I feel like saying you shouldn't make games in trilogies can be argued against fairly easily. A trilogy allows a game to tell a broader story, on a more grand scale, without rushing anything. I disagree with sequels which continue a story that has been closed up and dealt with only to start anew for the sequel, but on the basis that games shouldn't create what is effectively a story-arc spread over several games I disagree with. Take books for example, would The Lord of the Rings have been an effective epic if it had been crushed into one book of 4-500 pages? Maybe, but much less so, with far less rich detailing which made them so endearing. I go to my impressions on the story of Mass Effect, which, while not being brilliant or innovative, is still a grand and epic story that I don't believe can or should be condensed into one game.pimppeter2 said:
I agree that games should strive more for being stand-alone, but stopping trilogies preventing larger story arcs seems a bit foolish to me.
It's when people post games like this as needing sequels that I get upset. SotC completed it's individual story arc. To create a sequel could easily ruin the curious and interesting element about the games story: that you knew almost nothing about the world.robbins123 said:
