Lemming42
Arcane
There's plenty of game series that have dragged on too long, becoming sad hollow zombies. With all the remakes and sequels and remakes of sequels coming out lately, I've been thinking a lot about points at which game series "should" have ended.
For example, where would you have stopped the Fallout series? After New Vegas? After Fallout 2? Maybe you're even one of those people who thinks the first Fallout stands alone, and never needed any sequels.
And what about Thief? Would you have ended the series with Thief 2, or Deadly Shadows? Or even just had Thief TDP stand on its own as a masterpiece, no sequels necessary?
List your opinions, the more controversial the better. Whoever gets the most retarded ratings wins the thread. I'll start:
- Fallout should have ended with New Vegas. I think New Vegas is worth having to deal with Tactics, BoS, and Fo3 as weird spinoff-y abberations.
- Diablo didn't need any sequels.
- Final Fantasy should probably have stopped at FFX, if not before that.
- Tomb Raider should have ended with Tomb Raider 2, but 2 is an odd number for a series so maybe throw TR3 or TLR in there as a third entry depending on which you like more.
- Don't know how controversial this is, but Resident Evil didn't need to become such a huge franchise. The first game stands fine on its own as a great Alone in the Dark knockoff with a fantastically funny B-movie feel, and it didn't need any sequels. A lot of the subsequent games are fun and technically better than RE1 in a lot of ways, but they all feel sort of superfluous and unnecessary since the first game already basically got the formula perfect, I dunno.
- Half-Life never needed any sequels, or even expansion packs.
- Here we go, big controversy time: System Shock didn't need a sequel. Come retard-rate me.
For example, where would you have stopped the Fallout series? After New Vegas? After Fallout 2? Maybe you're even one of those people who thinks the first Fallout stands alone, and never needed any sequels.
And what about Thief? Would you have ended the series with Thief 2, or Deadly Shadows? Or even just had Thief TDP stand on its own as a masterpiece, no sequels necessary?
List your opinions, the more controversial the better. Whoever gets the most retarded ratings wins the thread. I'll start:
- Fallout should have ended with New Vegas. I think New Vegas is worth having to deal with Tactics, BoS, and Fo3 as weird spinoff-y abberations.
- Diablo didn't need any sequels.
- Final Fantasy should probably have stopped at FFX, if not before that.
- Tomb Raider should have ended with Tomb Raider 2, but 2 is an odd number for a series so maybe throw TR3 or TLR in there as a third entry depending on which you like more.
- Don't know how controversial this is, but Resident Evil didn't need to become such a huge franchise. The first game stands fine on its own as a great Alone in the Dark knockoff with a fantastically funny B-movie feel, and it didn't need any sequels. A lot of the subsequent games are fun and technically better than RE1 in a lot of ways, but they all feel sort of superfluous and unnecessary since the first game already basically got the formula perfect, I dunno.
- Half-Life never needed any sequels, or even expansion packs.
- Here we go, big controversy time: System Shock didn't need a sequel. Come retard-rate me.