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
Mai Valentine

Mai Valentine

Moderator
Games guilty of this: Halo 2, Gears of War, Assassin's Creed, and probably others that I can't think of.

So what do you think? Does it bug you that some games do this?

I generally don't mind if there is a guaranteed sequel, but for games like Beyond Good & Evil where they set it up as if they are, and it doesn't happen, it kind of sucks.
 
well....if the game was particularly awesome, im glad to be getting more some day, but if it was one i wasnt particularly interesting in, then so be it
 
It all depends. A game that is set out to be spread out and one game leaves a cliffhanger at the end its fine(Assasains Creed). But, if one leaves one without having a sequel then thats just LAME.
 
well i like them (even though when i see the ending i get really mad XD) specially on kingdom hearts
 
Might want to add God of War 2 to that list.

Personally, I don't like it. To me it seems that a game should tell a story from beginning to end. It's kind of frustrating to pay $120 for one story, particularly if each game is only 10-20 hours long, or less. With movies, it's a little bit different, because it almost works better to split up a 6 hour story into 3 hour segments, but with a videogames, it's a lot harder to justify, especially when some games provide 100 hour long experiences. Because you can pick up and play a game for shorter or longer intervals of time, there doesn't seem to be any valid artistic reason to make one story span two games. The only reason I can think of for doing this would be to make more money using the logic I mentioned before, and to me personally I don't think that should be a factor in the creative process.
 
It depends on if they can pull it off. I mean, if it's a satisfying cliffhanger, with you knowing enough and wondering enough to tide you over, then I'm ok with it.
 
I'm sorry but I hate it. Remember Halo 2 when you thought there was this big boss but there wasn't and it ended blandly? Hated it. Assassin's Creed ending? Hated it. There has got to be a better way to make sequels and continue the series than make a cheesy ending and make it easier on them to end a game. Just my feelings on the subject. :/
 
I thought the first Halo had a pretty good ending. I guess when they made the first one they didn't know it would be so popular...but with Halo 2 they knew the next MS system was looming, so they gave it a cliffhanger ending on purpose to set up for Halo 3.
 
I personally could care less if game companies make sequels. For one, if the first installment was great, and the second sucks, then I won't waste my money on it. Because when that happens, it means to me that they didn't plan to have a sequel in the first place and slapped something together to sap more money from their IP.

Now, if the first game is great, and the second is a seamless addition, then I say cool. Because that means that they constructed a storyline from start to end and intended a break at the midpoint.
stealth toilet said:
Might want to add God of War 2 to that list.

Personally, I don't like it. To me it seems that a game should tell a story from beginning to end. It's kind of frustrating to pay $120 for one story, particularly if each game is only 10-20 hours long, or less. With movies, it's a little bit different, because it almost works better to split up a 6 hour story into 3 hour segments, but with a videogames, it's a lot harder to justify, especially when some games provide 100 hour long experiences. Because you can pick up and play a game for shorter or longer intervals of time, there doesn't seem to be any valid artistic reason to make one story span two games. The only reason I can think of for doing this would be to make more money using the logic I mentioned before, and to me personally I don't think that should be a factor in the creative process.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree because games do have the luxury of being as long as they feel is necessary to tell the story. I disagree because if they make a very long and detailed story, but the publishers are constricting the time, they could solve that by cutting the story in two, release the game ontime and then go back and finish the story later.
 
Like that Godzilla movie from about a decade ago, at the end it shows one last egg, but no sequel, nothing. I loved the movie, and wanted a sequel.
 
Dart said:
I disagree because if they make a very long and detailed story, but the publishers are constricting the time, they could solve that by cutting the story in two, release the game ontime and then go back and finish the story later.
Click to expand...

That is what I'm taking issue with though. Ideally, that wouldn't happen. If I had it my way I wouldn't have to pay $120 on two games when that one story could have been finished with the first game. From an artist's standpoint, it makes sense, and from the consumer's standpoint (or patron of the arts standpoint) it makes sense, the only person who it doesn't make sense to is the businessman, who see an opportunity to double the profit one story can make.

I'm not saying developers need to wrap up every loose end so there's nothing they could ever make a sequel out of. It's not sequels in general that I have an issue with. It's when a game is conceived as one continuous narrative and, for what I can only assume is a cash grab, is split into two games, that I have an issue with it. And this is exemplified in the "cliffhanger" ending.
 
Hinesmdc said:
Like that Godzilla movie from about a decade ago, at the end it shows one last egg, but no sequel, nothing. I loved the movie, and wanted a sequel.
Click to expand...
Its called Fan fiction :lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top