endings to set up for sequels: good or bad?

A lot of games these days are given cliffhanger endings to make it easier for a sequel. Do you like

  • Total voters
    15
Personally I don't mind a cliffhanger ending, as long as I know it has been well thought out and the makers know where they're going to go from there. If its basically just 50% of a game then that annoys me as its just lazy thinking and well, a way to get more money out of people with the second installment..
 
Nova said:
No, I can't say I'm too fond of cliffhangers. To me, it's just laziness. It IS possible to make a sequel that continues from the previous one, without leaving the first one in a cliffhanger, like Devil May Cry series, Quake, and Half-Life, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
And for a more recent example, Mass Effect. The story in the first was entirely self-contained, and had no cliffhangers.
 
Nova said:
No, I can't say I'm too fond of cliffhangers. To me, it's just laziness. It IS possible to make a sequel that continues from the previous one, without leaving the first one in a cliffhanger, like Devil May Cry series, Quake, and Half-Life, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Cliffhangers makes you want to know what happens. So you buy the next game. Plus, games overly flooded with story are bad, so best to break it up.
 
fhqwhgads said:
Cliffhangers makes you want to know what happens. So you buy the next game. Plus, games overly flooded with story are bad, so best to break it up.
Click to expand...

True. I guess it just depends on the game though. Some games don't really set up for sequels..and end up having prequels instead...those are sometimes more pleasing to me than sequels.
 
Oh yeah, I agree, some movies and games do that alot.

Gears of War especially..oye...and the first FEAR (Luckily we got the sequel)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top