Topic: Why don't game series end?

It wasn't long ago I was thinking about the possibility of a series that had a definite ending. I suppose the Metroid Prime trilogy was something close to that, but I think a game series would need to be pretty heavily story-based to be able to have such a structure. Games focus more on the gameplay than on the story, which I think might be one reason we don't see series properly ending as often as we do.

Anyone consider the Zelda franchise to contain different Parts that do end? Like, Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask was a little series in the major series. And as Cipher says, games like Zelda are more focused on gameplay than story (except Skyward Sword).

Because people don't like good things to end and average consumers don't like to stray from the norm.

Does anyone think it might have something to do with how interactive the medium is?

If a company stops making a series of games that you've been so involved in, it's like they're stopping you, you can't just let the story end.

There's probably a more articulate way of putting that.

Game series do end. Mega Man, Monkey Island, F-Zero, Wave Race...

Someone like Hideki Kamiya makes a new IP, and then he moves to another game. It is up to someone else to do a sequel, so even if he completes the story in one go, it can be decided that it will continue without him, as either a prequel or sequel storywise.

If you mean stop being produced then yes, but end...far from it.
MegaMan alone has 2 (4 if youre picky) loose ends right now.
X and Legends ended on a cliffhanger, and the transition from classic to X and from ZX to Legends is still up in the air.

So yeah, define "ending"

Because I never get sick of my favorite franchises. Ever.

Please make Castlevania, Mega Man, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Mario, and Halo until I die.

Money, and games lend themselves better to sequels than movies. Games can improve gameplay and whatnot, or get a new protagonist if the story needs it and still keep the gameplay. Movies and books have to up the story, which often times is good because it was planned with an end, which makes it harder than gameplay to improve on. Though in cases where they keep improving the story and just keep going with the same protagonist, I can't say why that works out better. I can sort of see why, but can't explain it.

Is this honestly a topic?
Really?
Is it that hard to use basic elementary logic to figure this concept out?
(sigh)

It's consumer demand. People want more of things they like, so companies make more of them.

/thread

Money. It's not particularly to figure out why that's kind of important here. Sequels are guaranteed money makers because (unless they completely screw up in some ridiculous way) they'll sell to an existing fanbase or group of consumers. And when games take millions of dollars to create, that guaranteed profit is a really nice thing to have. It's also why hollywood tends to release sequel after sequel to every hit movie they make, because it's seen as 'easy' money.

There's also, as Jaz007 mentioned above, the fact that game series can carry on a lot longer without going downhill simply by the fact that it's the gameplay that's most important rather than the story or setting. If a new film or book or whatever is made, it has to figure out a good way to keep the story going past the existing conclusion, which usually leads to an unsatisfying experience (a lot of series just either up the stakes or try and have wave the old ending way in a diabolus ex machina, which leads to uninspired storylines). A game doesn't. A game series can exist where story is pretty much a minimal background element of little importance, hence the series can simply go on forever by building on the gameplay and adding paper thin plots for each new installment. In fact, pretty much almost all important games series are designed that way, with almost every big AAA series either having a fairly thin plot or one that lets the creators build more and more onto it without having to mess with the storylines in existing titles.

Also in movies/TV you have the issue that actors age or die, that's not a problem for video games (people are more willing to accept a voice actor change than a live action actor change)

The only series I want to end are COD and Final Fantasy (because there was never a Final Fantasy because of the sequels! )

If you look at what Rare was doing at their peak. (New games that were good enough to make everybody want them and sequels).

It does like Nintendo is dry humping the cash cow.

Bomberman did...

And so did F-Zero :3 (I feel like I just started something)

And for those two a game that is as good as the best one (Bomberman '94 or F-Zero GX) but with online multiplayer is an obvious thing.

It is sad. The Nintendo of today I think would never have made Super Mario World 2 : Yoshi's Island they would have just made another more of the same sequel to Mario World).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Need I say more?

yeah, i mean how could someone not really know this answer?
i feel so sorry for you and dragon sometimes, i really do. im sorry you all have to go through this. just put me in yalls will.