Topic: Why don't game series end?

I understand how you feel here. The games that people complain that are being milked (like Mario) are silly because if a series makes money, it will be made more. I mean just look at Assassins Creed and Uncharted. From being new ips to being old.

This is one reason why Nintendo doesn't make games that focus huge on stories because if they did that, they would have to satisfy the gamers with the finale. Zelda games really don't focus so much of the chronology detail and I can easily tell that because Nintendo themselves don't know how to fix it. Professor Layton came to an end and yet Level-5 plans to bring it to another direction without the professor (why? WHY? ).

It's kind of scary to think how long game series might go on for, probably still be going when we're all dead...

"What's your favorite Zelda game?"
"I think it's Zelda 268."
"I can't remember which one that was."
"What's your favorite Zelda game?"
"Probably Zelda 118."
"I can't remember which one that was."
"Apparently Ocarina of Time was good."
"Never heard of it."
"I think it was one of the early ones."

etc.

Yes, you would need to.

Movies and books are subject to the same market forces, but the amount of movies and books, and when they end, is often determined before rather than continuously.

As some have already said, the difference between games and other mediums seems to have a lot to do with the creative process.

For instance, a big Hollywood actor may sign up to do 3 movies in a particular series. This wouldn't categorically mean the series would have to end after 3, but it would have an influence if that big actor decided not to do any more thereafter.

Authors often have set amount of books in their head, and even if the demand from the public is there, resist the call to write any more.

It would seem that generally speaking, the fewer people needed to create an entertainment product, the more resistant it is to naked market forces.

As much as I admire Miyamoto, the fact hat he isn't very involved in the more recent Zelda games doesn't bother me much, and am eager to check the next one out.

In contrast, as a fan of Hitchhikker's Guide to the Galaxy and Douglas Adams, I have little interest in reading the latest in the series written by Eoin Colfer.

A company like Nintendo owns the franchise, and hires hundreds of people to work on it. If they changed an entire development team for a series, I wouldn't have any idea. With a few exceptions, it seems in the gaming industry, the characters and franchise created is more important than the creators to a large extent.

Game series then are more continuous and ever evolving, and as many have blithely insinuated, more determined by how much money they can make, than other mediums.

Many have made similar points to mine, and I appreciate their comments and capacity for nuance.

continue thread

nah were good

It's not that hard to explain, actually.
Books and movies are identified by characters and the story/setting entirely. But such a thing can be expanded by relationships (like children, siblings, friends) to cover background information or create new story elements.
In games, however, characters, while often being the most identifiable aspect of a game or game series, are not the sole focus. Games can tell a story, but they don't do it all the time. Instead, they identify themselves through gameplay mechanics for the most part - specific mechanics brought together in the right way make a game, while experiencing these mechanics with new characters keeps it interesting and open to expansions or gimmicks.

For examples, look at Final Fantasy or the Tales of series: both have sustained a naming gimmick while most of the entries aren't even related in any relevant ways - except for game mechanics. Tales of always has that unique on-rails action RPG combat system, while Final Fantasy employed more of a tactical semi-realtime menu-based RPG combat system (though Squenix has moved away from that and replaced it with spamfests).
Games are more about recurring mechanics and its improvements - but a book or movie can't just use the very same driving point and just slap some stuff onto it (Transformers and The Expendables are proof of that).

The question is how far down that road has Nintendo gone. Only sequels I think they are quite far down it.

@unrandomsam Adelman has a point, but generalizes it too far. Every company needs to make money too keep going, after all. His rule should state "Every game designer who only aims to maximize profit above all is a bad game designer" instead.

Nostalgia, and because people like it! It's something safe to buy, than getting an entire new franchise!
I have to say that it would feel weird if there were no more Zelda games or Pokémon games... it's the way it has always been! I grew up with them as a kid, and would like to grow old with them! Those are quality games as well, innovating where they can, the characters that evolve it doesn't get boring! There are games that I won't appreciate as much as I should, but I still like them and play them!

If it's money milking for unchanged games, hmmm, COD etc comes to mind? Then no There's nothing new, easy to make... They won't ever see my money!

That's unfair to be honest. Okay, yearly milking of series isn't exactly a great thing for 'innovation', but come on, as long as they're decent games in their own right, then the motivations behind them are rather irrelevant.

And as people have said, gaming is still a business. They need money, somehow. The whole point of a company is to make money, it's pretty much defined in their structure.

Oh god, reading that made me realize how boring it could get working on the same series your entire life, unless you're fortunate enough to have the creative freedom to go different directions with the series a la Zelda.
It's great that Bungie managed to escape the trap that ensnared Infinity Ward, Neversoft, and all the other developers that ended up just turning out crap after repetitive crap because their publishers saw their IPs as nothing but cash cows.

Yeah but delaying Smash to add Amiibo is prime example of that happening.

Um, they've been on this road since the Super Nintendo...

Baseless accusations serve no purpose in an argument

It is not baseless it is obvious.

In the words of skeptics: "Prove it"

And no, it isn't obvious.

We were never given a date of release and the game was in development for 3 years. There is no solid evidence that it was "delayed", especially since the supposed date is so close to the 3DS version.

Mega Man Legends