Why is 2 > 3 > 1 the most common ranking when it comes to trilogies? Sure, there are some cases where it's a different order, but 2 > 3 > 1 in particular seems to be the one that a lot of trilogies seem to be associated with from what I have noticed. What causes this?
>>733764520No one thinks this about Dark Souls.
>Dark Souls 2.Good one OP. You have me in the first half ngl.
>>733764520>What causes this?First game in the series acts as a proof-of-concept. Second game perfects the concept. Third game either changes things for the worse, or is just a low-effort rehash.
>>733764520Uncharted 1>2>3Silent Hill 1>3>2RE 3>1>2Dark Souls 3>2>1Never played Danganronpa
>>733764520It's not always true. It was just a trend in indie and semi-indie games. For example, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro on PlayStation 1.The first entry in the series was just a bland testing game, the 2nd entry was a genuine finished product perfecting the 1st game. The 3rd entry was either the same as the 2nd entry or a slight improvement, but came with the cost of developers adding experimental game modes into it so that they gain experience in variety and can easily pivot to other game genres. Spyro 3 had those additional playable characters which all play like shit and have terrible levels. Crash 3 was barely a platformer since 33% of it's levels aren't platforming levels (which would normally be "fine" but half the non-platforming levels are utter garbage and just make the game worse).
>>733765764>It's not always true. OP already said that.>Crash bandicoot and Spyro>indie and semi-indieHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're a fuckin retard.
>>733766789Explain how Insomniac and Naughty Dog are not indie or semi-indie at the time of release of their PS1 games. I'm waiting.
>>733764520this also applies to Mega Man 1-3
>>733764520It's almost always 3 > 1 > 2. Even in your examples.You just have shit taste.It's usually some combination of the second game being either too experimental or too derivative, then the third game refining the balance between new and old.
1>2>3
1 is an attempt to create something new. The developers make mistakes, the funding isn't going to be there, so it's rough around the edges but its success shows the promise of the concept.2 is the creative vision realized in full. The developers now have the budget and experience to make something that works.3 is the cash grab. The devs already realized their vision, but the publishers want to squeeze more money out of it. The production value and experience are still there, so it's still better than 1, but the passion and soul of 2 are lost.
>>733766971Both Spyro and Crash were produced by Universal Studios
>>733764520Lemme explain:A game is originally created. It pops off. The team starts there. But they are unable to convey what they truly wanted to create, because of time constraints and a lack of competence.So they make a second game in the franchise. This game is peak talent for the original team that created the first one. They got the skills, and the creator is now able to fully realize and accomplish his true vision. They also most of the time when it comes to games, enhance the systems of the first game, refresh everything and expand upon everything to the 1st game and more.After the huge commercial or critical acclaim, they make a (final) third game. This is like 2 in terms of knowledge and skills, but without the "peak" because they now are doing this for the money. And there's a split in there as well, many 3rd entries in a franchise try to recreate the original success of the 1st or the 2nd game, but they never succeed doing so.What I explained does not work for RE though. RE3 is the real 2 because 2 is just RE1 with two other characters. Most people that say RE2 > RE1 are nostalgia fags that began with 2.And it also doesn't work for Dark Souls because 2 was made by a separate team from 1. DS3 was made by the team from DS1.
>>733767290The creative design and game development was entirely handled by NaughtyDog and Insomniac who were by all definitions indie studios at the time. Universal Studios was just the publisher. This is like saying any studio who puts their game on Steam is no longer an indie studio just because Valve is effectively the publisher.>inb4 but Sony partially funded them and gave them dev kitsIrrelevant. You can make your own 1-man startup today and get funded by some company if you have a good pitch. You're still an indie dev.The modern definition of what an "indie studio" is is extremely flawed and retarded. Not to mention it doesn't apply to the old era of consoles because of how game distribution worked. If you use the definition of "indie" by the standards of "the modern audience" then there is no such thing as an indie studio on retro game consoles.
>>733767757>just because Valve is effectively the publisher.valve is not the publisher, retard. valve is the distributor. publisher and distributor aren't the same thing and they handle different parts of the operation.
>>733764520You forgot Devil May Cry
SH 3 > 1 > 2DS 1 >> 3 > 2Danganronpa 2 > 1 > 53
>>733768302>noo it's Sony that is the distributorIrrelevant, you know what I mean.They (ND and Insomniac) had complete corporate independence. They only didn't have market independence because of how consoles worked at the time (and probably still do). Again, they're semi-indie because no true indie studio existed at the time as far as publishing to consoles is concerned.
>>733765764Crash 1 and Spyro 1 are the best in their respective series you retarded mutt. Funny you call them bland when these first games had the most personality and soul.
>1Ambitious original title with relatively modest budget that outdoes sales expectations>2Close to the formula of the original but with more resources at their disposal to truly fulfill all their goals>3Devs have already run the well dry and are doing this for a quick buckThere are reasons for other rankings tho, e.g. Deus Ex>1Ambitious original title with relatively modest budget that outdoes sales expectations>2Success means publishers and other execs get involved and ruin the secret formula>3Fresh reboot that does not exceed the original but is a mostly well done standalone game
>>733768763>Crash 1 and Spyro 1>best in their respective seriesLmao no. Spyro 1 looks and feels like a demo or an alpha version of Spyro 2. Crash 1 is just bad.
>>733768910Crash 1 has by far the best level design, best atmosphere, best soundtrack, most level variety, and has no gimmicks or bullshit. Spyro 2 and 3 are just shitty minigame compilations for toddlers.
>>733768969Spyro 2 is the best entry in the entire franchise. Spyro 1 is just ass.>Crash 1 has by far the best level design, best atmosphere, best soundtrackObjectively false.
>>733769159Crash 2 is still great, but level design is worse, soundtrack is worse, story is just retarded nonsense, it recycles levels over and over, too many gimmicks/vehicles, stage selection takes way longer now, and the hidden exits and some of the backtracking for 100% is just obnoxious No, the slide does not magically make the platforming so much better, Crash's appeal was in its simple controls but difficult execution in tricky stages
>>733769348>storyAs if that ever mattered.>stage selection takes way longer nowDoes it really? You need to travel between islands in Crash 1 clicking through levels one by one. Crash 3 has all levels in the same room while Crash 2 is only a slightly slower version of Crash 3. I will give you a point here and admit that the hub design of Crash 1 has the most charm, and Crash 2 hubs are the worst in comparison, but I'd rather have the level select of Crash 3 any day.>backtrackingCrash 1 has pointless backtracking too.>level design is worseFor the most part I actually disagree. Crash 2 and Crash 3 have some of the best platformer levels of the entire franchise. Crash 1 just has more of them.Even the only non-platformer level variant in Crash 1 (Hog Ride levels) is infinitely better in Crash 2 and especially Crash 3.The boss fights are also C3>C2>C1.The only thing that Crash 1 does better is consistency. Crash 2 only fails here because of the two shitty jetpack levels, but those aren't enough to make me think Crash 2 is worse than Crash 1.Meanwhile Crash 3 has generally better and more fun controls than Crash 1. Yes, I fucking love the double jump and death tornado. The only reason they're wasted potential is because 30% of Crash 3 is not spent in platforming levels, so there is not enough room to use them.
>>733770058Also >>733769348>recycles levels over and overSame with Crash 1. There is a single digit number of level themes in Crash 1.
