Trouble with Trilogies

Some of the best games come in trilogy format: Halo, Diablo, Warcraft (pre “World of”), so wouldn’t it make sense for developers to plan on making trilogies? After all, filmmakers and novel writers have been doing so for years. Well, what’s good for one medium isn’t necessarily good for others, so the short answer: no, game makers shouldn’t plan out trilogies. Full reasoning after the jump.

There’s a fundamental difference in the way stories are told across mediums. Novels and films both contain a single narrative that is unaltered by the actions of the audience, unlike many video games that have subplots and user interaction that often alters the course of events. In a film or book, leaving the audience in the dark on certain aspects of the story is a great way to heighten tension and anticipation for any sequels that are in the works, where in a video game that just leaves the audience angry.

"There is another..."

When a filmmaker or author saves key story elements for a sequel, they leave the reader/viewer with anticipation and excitement that usually lasts a couple of months, or a year until the next installment drops. Well, with video games, a cliffhanger ending is often looked at as a dick move since developing a game can take multiple years. Think of how you felt at the end of Halo 2, and if you were anything like me, you had forgotten where exactly Chief ended up, or why you cared by the time Halo 3 finally showed up.

Then you have the other side of the coin, in that a video game sequel can get canned at any point in development. Film projects or books aren’t discarded as regularly due to their comparatively low cost:risk ratio, but since games take so long to produce and soak up so many resources, it isn’t uncommon for publishers to cut their losses on a project and abandon their small, but loyal fan base.

Take a look at Advent Rising, for example. When first released, it was touted as the beginning of an epic trilogy. However, it received lackluster reviews and low sales numbers. As a result, those who tolerated the gameplay issues and actually enjoyed the story got left without proper closure. Sure, there was a series of comics, but it’s just not the same. Besides, they were prequels.

Truly successful video game trilogies all seem to start with a single successful game, and it would seem that those games aren’t necessarily intended to be trilogies when they first arrive. The previously mentioned Halo is a prime example of this. The story of Halo: Combat Evolved was a self-contained tale about Master Chief’s gallivanting about a single ring, combating the basic covenant foot soldiers and flood baddies with the occasional hunter tossed in for flavor.

To create Halo 2, Bungie had to introduce a myriad of new enemy types and plot twists to flesh out the world (another Halo?!?!?). Halo 2 got away with a disappointing cliffhanger finale because, at that point, the Halo franchise was more popular than food and most people played it for the multiplayer anyway, so a third installment was inevitable.

The point is, though, that Halo succeeded as a trilogy because it started as a successful single game. Perhaps developers shouldn’t worry about creating a worthwhile series, but worry about creating a worthwhile game first. The fans will tell them whether they should make a sequel or not with their purchases. So far, Mass Effect, Too Human and even Mirror’s Edge are all planned to be trilogies. Only time will tell if they can pull it off, but I think their chances of success are directly proportional to the quality of their first chapter.