@falserelic: Yeah at least people don't say 3 is the best of the trilogy, because they be crazy. I was really disappointed in it, my favorite part of the game is the boat set piece and it has NOTHING to do with the story, absolutely nothing.
Dragon Age II wasn't that bad. I actually really enjoyedthe story by the final act and the combat was a lot more fun than the first game. It was mainly hindered by the fact that they had something like 18 months to make it.
It's absurd to think that the damage is irreversible. If they make a great game and reviewers come out and say "yeah this is awesome" people will buy it.
- The Ratchet and Clank series, in my opinion, began to show signs of decline when the series jumped to the PlayStation 3. With the release of All 4 One and the subsequent PSN titles, I lost faith in the franchise. The visuals were drastically overhauled and the stories got really lackluster.
- The Need for Speed games used to be great, even when the focus was shifted to tuner culture. However, after Carbon, the games got worse. When Criterion Games made the Hot Pursuit reboot, the series got back on track, but not exactly. The game was dumbed down from the original in order to have a major focus on online multiplayer, which didn't grab my interest. When they announced "Most Wanted," I was really confused because it had no resemblance whatsoever to the original. Basically, what Criterion did with these two Need for Speed games was reskin Burnout with Need for Speed. A lot of people welcomed this direction the series was heading into, but I didn't.
Dead Space. 1 and 2 were great even though 2 leaned towards the action. But good god Dead Space 3 was screwed over completely.
Completely agree. EA destroyed this franchise by adding in game purchases for nodes, etc. Making Isaac faster, making the game into an action game, with quick time events, taking away the horror sensation.
Didn't this happen with Tomb Raider?
I never liked the originals much, but remember the general feeling being that each release was worse than the last.
Some people have mixed feelings about Tomb Raider. They're people that like the classics more then the reboot, and vise-versa.
Crysis: First game was a breath of fresh air, a revolutionary follow-up to Far Cry, with a quasi open world and freedom to the player to create amazing action. Crysis 2 and 3: Absolute Modern Warfare-esque horseshit powered by graphics and cutscenes. The real Crysis sequel is Far Cry 3.
Assassin's Creed: The first 3 games were amazing, they focused on the player being a badass assassin and a member of a long-running secret creed. It was about ASSASSINATING certain figures. Then it became about bombs and combat, too many cutscenes and story focus, and a million useless new mechanics and game systems. The story went to hell too. Now the word 'assassin' is no longer relevant to this franchise.
What constitutes "ruining" a franchise? Loved and then hated? Financially successful and then nothing? Developers not able to capitalize or realize what made their old games great? Adding in personal interpretation into the mix and I feel like we could take any franchise people like and twist it in such a way to make it look bad.
Personally I think it's when a team of passionate people create a title that has a clear focus on a certain pattern and texture to the gameplay, how you go about doing something and also why you do it (as part of a focused story that has future potential), and then they just scrap or mutilate the formula they excellently created and replace it with something that does not belong or make sense.
All of these 'bad' sequels should have been NEW brands, separate from the original games, because they are not in any way the natural continuation and evolution of those games. The only reason they have the same brand name is money.
I wouldn't have a problem with Crysis 2 and 3, or Hitman Absolution, if they weren't the sequels to the games they barely share anything with.