Why do we hate the third installment so much?

[FieryTrainwreck]

Speaking for only myself (who else?), I'd say the third entry in a trilogy represents the point where enough is enough. I enjoyed the first one, so I wanted more. The second one gave me more, hopefully with a twist here or there. By the third one, I'm ready to move on. Been there. Done that. This, especially, with regard to gaming.

With film, I think the second entry tends to function as the second act, and the second act is where conflict arises. Good guys lose. Bad guys triumph. Things turn complex and interesting. This is where most stories are most compelling. Thing is: the vast, vast majority of dramatic works chicken the fuck out in the third act, giving "fans" what they think they want - a quaint, happy, *boring* ending where everything works out for the good guys. I'm not saying good endings are impossible, but I do believe you only end up with a "happy ending" if you refuse to finish the story. For the most part, I enjoy a more nuanced conclusion.

 

[Windcaler]

ME3 generally wasnt hated because it was the third installment in a series it was hated because Bioware falsely advertised their product and then treated the community rather poorly when they called them on it.

Although typically they'll usually come up with complete lies in order to justify their whining.

Im sorry but perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you accusing me of creating a lie? or are you talking about the ME 3 movements and fans in general?

 

[The Hero Killer]

Thats not always necessarily true. Sometimes the third installment can be my favorite if its the conclusion of the story. I enjoy the journey I took with the characters and seeing how it all comes together in the end but most people judge the whole of something simply on its ending such as Mass Effect 3. Normally I dont like the first installment of a series since have the story has to be used to introduce the characters and the world, which is something I dont need to see after the first time.

 

[Skeleon]

I very much liked Warcraft 3, the third episode of the original Star Wars trilogy, the third part of the Lord of the Rings movies, the third book in the Harry Potter series (one of my favorites in the entire series, actually), the third book in the Black Oak series (Winter Knight, again one of my favorites in the series). The third episode of the Star Wars sequel trilogy wasn't as bad as the second or first in my view. Et cetera.
I think you're off. It's not that there's something wrong with third installments. It's that sequels often mess it up, regardless which installment it is. So obviously there's a high chance that third installments can suck and people dislike them.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Well, a lot of people have already mentioned Warcraft 3, one of the greatest, if not the great, RTS's of all time. And Sonic 3 and Knuckles is also one of the greatest platformers of all time. So it seems to be more of a trend than a law.

And TDKR was still pretty good.

 

[JagermanXcell]

The "hate" comes through these 2 facts:

1. Will it add to the greatness of the 2nd game/movie, or fall short, become stale, and overall crumble. Ex. Spiderman 3, Dark Knight Rises (it was good... and thats it...), Uncharted 3, ect.
OR! or!...
2. The IP is or will be seriously going down hill if the 3rd game/movie doesn't do something groundbreaking/lifesaving. Ex. Devil May Cry 3, Metal Gear Solid 3, Indiana Jones 3, ect.

Its not that we don't like 3rd installments, in fact I'm happy to see such series expand their lives. Its the 50/50 chance they have to survive that drives people crazy.

Half Kingdom Life Hearts 3.... all you can do is pray people...

 

[MorganL4]

I call it coincidence. Some of my favorite games are the third installment (Morrowind and Mario 3) of a series. If you really want a justification, I guess that it has to do with the makers running out of steam and creative energy at that time.

You first thought Morrowind too huh?

Yeah, that and Return of the King came to my mind.

I think it really depends on the creative team, many times with the 3rd installment they feel safe in the numbers catagory, so they figure: "No matter what we put out it will sell so don't worry if it is not up to snuff"

I'd wager that this happens quite regularly.

 

[mrhappy1489]

snip

Dude I'm going to have to call you on something, Bioshock 3 has yet to be released. I admit it looks, Fucking Awesome, but still, you can't put something in a list when it has actually been released. I'm jumping on the Band Wagon for this game and believe it will be great, but you cannot claim it to be a great sequel when it hasn't been released. I agree with the other things you say and thoroughly agree with the other 3rd instalments that you've put up.

If Bioshock Infinite is just plain bad, I will eat the tongue on my shoe.

I'll eat an entire pair of shoes if it is. I do think that it is going to be fucking great though, although the last time I got my hopes up this much they were met, I'm looking at you Skyrim you crazy bastard!

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Because the people who decide that they liked the previous games more often feel the need to be extremely vocal about how the third installment didn't please them.

ME3 generally wasnt hated because it was the third installment in a series it was hated because Bioware falsely advertised their product and then treated the community rather poorly when they called them on it.

Although typically they'll usually come up with complete lies in order to justify their whining.

Right mate, I have seen you in the other threads as well, and seriously, can you just let it rest?

People can have opinions. People can say that they believe that the game did not deliver. But you really do not have to insult people, nor call them whiners. You could be pleasant and just say "Well, I personally thought that the game was alright because blah blah blah" and not be a dick about it.

You kind of people are more annoying than the so-called whiners. There is really no need for you to be an arse to the people who disagree with you. You were doing it in the other thread (I think it was the "Ending battle was the disappointment" thread.)

So, why don't you just say "Nah mate, the ending was amazing/the game was amazing" or whatever, instead of trying to slot in snide insult after snide insult?

 

[chikusho]

I think there's generally a hate for things with good track records that turn out poorly.

 

[The_Echo]

Dude, Devil May Cry 3 saved the series from the epic fail that was DMC2

Let's not forget Halo 3, which was good.

And the icing on the cake, Kingdom Hearts---!?

...

...

...

[sub][sub]It won't suck, it can't suck...there's no way...right!?[/sub][/sub]

If you want to think of it that way, Kingdom Hearts II is the third installment in the series. And that game was great. (Alternatively, Birth by Sleep is the third game in the "main" series.)

OT: I think that, when a third something isn't very good, it tends to be due to a duology being changed into a trilogy.

The best example is Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves. The first game was good. The second game... holy shit that game was great. But then Honor Among Thieves happens. It's not related to anything from the first two games (barring Bentley being handicapped), the plot isn't very engaging, and overall it just felt like a "we made it a trilogy because trilogies are hot right now" sort of game.

But then Sanzaru made Sly 4 and all was forgiven.

On the flip side, some third installments are the best! One of my absolute favorite games is Spyro: Year of the Dragon, the third and final Insomniac Spyro game. It took Spyro 2, which improved upon the first, and ironed out its flaws. I defy you to name one thing not amazing about Year of the Dragon.
(Don't say the Sasquatch Six's bullshit difficulty. I know... [small]I KNOW[/small].)

 

[Olas]

For starters, if a third movie is made chances are the ones that proceeded it were pretty good, meaning they often enter the ring with high expectations. In addition they often have to try and outdo the first two and avoid letting the series get repetitive which frequently pushes them into doing crazy things and going over the edge (see Spiderman 3). And third because they're often set up as a final act to a trilogy and being a conclusion story is hard to pull off. All that being said there are exceptions.

Movies:

Of the prequel Star Wars trilogy Revenge of the Sith is usually ranked as the best, though that's not saying a lot.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, based on what many consider to be the best book, took the movies in darker, more mature and emotionally complex direction.

The third Lotr movie is usually considered the best and won the most awards. Though the trilogy is essentially one story so it arguably shouldn't count.

Goldfinger is one of the best Bond films according to many people and introduced a lot of the iconic bond elements we know of today.

Toy Story 3, while not necessarily the best is considered to be at least a very good sequel and worthy successor to the first 2.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is so well known and revered today that many people don't know it's part of a trilogy.

The Last Crusade might not be better than Raiders, but it's still a great movie in it's own right.

Video Games:

Super Mario Bros 3 is a beloved masterpiece.

Super Metroid, the third Metroid game is often considered the best of the 2D ones.

Warcraft III is the only one anyone talks about.

Fallout 3, I don't know much about it but apparently it's good.

Metal Slug 3 stands well above all the others. (In my opinion at least)

 

[Nieroshai]

I think they hate it because it actually sucks. Well a lot of times that's the case, actually - strong start with the first product, second one may be better or worse usually not by much but just noticeable and finally the third product would either get the series back on track (if the second one was weak) or break it. It's a common pattern.

I can't actually speak for Spider Man 3 and dark Knight Rises - I never watched any of them. I didn't even hear people complain. But you're wrong if you think people decry Mass Effect 3 - the actual feelings people have expressed are that the game itself is good - at least not way worse or way better than the other two. It's the ending that people take an issue with. I don't need to go into it - it has been explained to death.

He's not wrong. You haven't been listening. People have been shitting all over ME3 since release. The people defending it, who you seem to be referring to, often end up being the ones getting flamed for daring defend the blatant "betrayal" of the fanbase everyone sTILL claims the third installment was.

 

[emeraldrafael]

To me, I think its cause it signals an end that people either dont want or have over hyped to their own personal visions (especially in the case of an interactive medium like videogames and ME3). I'm actually big on things only going to three games and only being three games if they center around one person and tale that persons tale. its the classic story structure of rise, level off greatness, fall. I cant stand when someone saws its going to be a trilogy and then makes it into 4+ games.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It has nothing to do with simply being the third in a series. "Return of the Jedi" IMO was by far the best of the original SW trilogy. PoP:Two Thrones was an excellent game and better than the 2nd, Resident Evil 4 was, IMO the best in the series. It has nothing to do with the number 3, it's quite simply that The Dark Knight Rises was shit and went on far too long and ME3 was CoD in space (complete with "Stay Frosty"s, "See you on the other side"s and "Check your six"s and all that garbage) with poor dialogue, no recognition of anything Shepard has done to that point beyond a numerical value. Spiderman 3 had too many villains and quite frankly would've had a hard time following up Spiderman 2, probably the best comic-book film to date.

When a franchise is milked and flogged for all it's worth, creativity and innovation are reduced with each subsequent outing. Perhaps it's just that by the third rehash there's little left to go around. Particularly when EA or Activision get involved. They take anything remotely sophisticated, interesting or intelligent and reduce it down to a paint-by-numbers action game.

 

[spartandude]

Because the people who decide that they liked the previous games more often feel the need to be extremely vocal about how the third installment didn't please them.

ME3 generally wasnt hated because it was the third installment in a series it was hated because Bioware falsely advertised their product and then treated the community rather poorly when they called them on it.

Although typically they'll usually come up with complete lies in order to justify their whining.

it goes against everything i stand for to feed people like you but here we go

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9097672

this is a list of promises made by bioware during development, with sources to where they said them.

Spoiler: example

Interviewer:
[Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] ?Is that same type of
complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3??

Hudson: ?Yeah, and
I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a
way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together
somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so
many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff.
It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say
how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings
have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.?

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

 

[Arcadian Legend]

I think they hate it because it actually sucks. Well a lot of times that's the case, actually - strong start with the first product, second one may be better or worse usually not by much but just noticeable and finally the third product would either get the series back on track (if the second one was weak) or break it. It's a common pattern.

Pretty much this. I've noticed this pattern for a long time now. As for the 4th installment, if the 3rd sucked, the 4th is likely to be very good or sometimes even be considered the best in the series. If the third installment was great the 4th will probably fall into the meh/sucky categories. The 5th installment onwards is when things in terms of quality start to become unpredictable and difficult to track.

 

[Neonsilver]

I think the third installment of a trilogy often suffers for numerous reasons.
Having to live up to the hype the marketing and the success of the first 2 installments generates.
It is also possible that people are willing to cut the first two installments a little more slack, because they think the sequel might explain the open questions.