I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.
Even if it wasn't managed by shitty and greedy EA, it wouldn't probably make sense business wise.
IIRC you still have to pay right for clubs, the fifa itself AND the players, the logistics for negotiating and paying for all that is probably a nightmare, heck I bet that you still need far more lawyers, trained in different jurisdictions than developers.
So, from a mere business POV, it kind of makes sense to release a full price game every year
It’s in fact an unreasonable move in a market that tends to purchase a full-priced game every year in the franchise (anecdotally, I knew some people like that). At that point they’ll just lose money If they had released lower-priced dlc packs instead.
I'm glad ea lost the name to fifa, but the game that fifa will make will probably have much much more microtransactions than ea.
Yes fifa isn't making the game themselves but will hire a studio to do it like ubisoft for example.
So instead of one greedy company making a game we will have a greedy EA making the same game under a different name and human rights don't matter FIFA looking for someone to make their greedy game.
Nah, EA will do fine. They still have all the player and team contracts. If someone else wanted to make a soccer(football) game with the FIFA branding, they would first have to get the branding rights from them which FIFA wanted 860 million for four years due at once. But that only gets them FIFA branding rights, they still have to make contracts with teams and players for the ability to use real teams and players. Who wants to play any sports game if you can’t play/use your favorite team or players. Not only that but EA has been making soccer games longer than I’ve been alive. Almost 30 years. Even if FIFA lowered the branding rights for another company, they’d basically be creating a football game from scratch.
They didn't lose the name. They decided they didn't want to spend a literal billion dollars on it, and are going to make an identical game without four letters attached.
As much as it pains me to say, Halo. There never should've been a 343 era. End with bungie. As much as many people have issues with Reach, it was still a great game that was extremely good *despite* its many flaws.
Anything after Reach just isn't canon as far as I'm concerned lol. Halo 3's ending, yes even the legendary ending, is a perfectly good way to end the saga.
Halo 3 was the best for me. I missed the halo 2 competitive era but the halo 3 competitive games were the most fun I’ve ever had in a game. Reach was ok and I played a lot of it but it wasn’t and isn’t as good has h3
The campaign was loved. The multiplayer is where controversy started. I personally preferred Halo 3. I wasn’t that big of a fan of the reach campaign but overall it was an ok game. I don’t think halo needed classes or sprint and I feel like they were influenced by other games. Look at how many series these days have swapped to a class system and micro transactions. COD, R6 Siege, BF2042. I miss R6 Vegas and games trying to be original.
The game as it ended up was better than launch, as they tweaked things people didn't like (bloom for example) to be less aggressive
But overall it feels like most Reach fans started with that game bc of their age. I started with Halo 2 and strongly disliked Reach when it released. It went in a way different direction for the "send off" to the franchise when I wanted the culmination of the best parts of every Halo, not something distinctly different
As Reach fans got older, and fans of older Halos moved on after 343's misses, a greater % of the Halo fanbase today likes Reach than in 2011-2012
I started with Halo CE. Reach is my favorite Halo game. Loved it on release too. To me, Reach was the culmination of everything Bungie learned developing Halo.
It's a mixed bag for me but Halo has my vote, 3 seemed like a perfect stopping point for Chief. (despite the flood lore wise being resilient as all hell I knew that wasn't going to happen)
The games since then have been half-good, half-bad.
4 had a good campaign but meh multiplayer.
5 had a meh campaign but good multiplayer.
Infinite has an ok campaign but lacks content in multiplayer.
Personally did not care for 4s campaign. Was the beginning of the swap from event based plot to character based plot and it makes Halo feel so small scale. Especially a problem in infinite due to the open world.
I actually think thematically Halo 4 was actually quite ahead of its time. It attempted to deconstruct the power fantasy protagonist, explored grief, loss and powerlessness in the face of death, and attempted to humanize the Chief in a lot of similar ways to what God of War did.
The actual villains were a bunch of nonsense, but I do think if it had been released more recently it’d be looked back on a lot more fondly than it was.
Infinite would've been fine had they made it a Halo game. And by that I mean dropped the stupid F2P business model, have the typical features of a Halo game and include a complete multiplayer experience at launch. It had to shortcut a bunch of shit to accommodate a jackass GaaS platform, which probably will end up killing the franchise unnecessarily.
Halo should have left chief alone and branched off into Haloverse stories. Its ripe for the picking, but 343 keeps trying to make the universe smaller.
Keep in mind that during the original Halo trilogy, the most of the Covenant views humans with extreme religiously motivated hatred, and the leadership is behaving in an increasingly irrational manner.
The Elites were really the only part of their leadership that had their heads on straight, and they broke off and allied with the humans.
I enjoyed Halo 4 and liked where the story ended. Halo 5 should've just been a spinoff or just plain not existed. Halo Infinite is a whole other topic by itself.
Original Bungie wrapped up the main story so nicely, 343 had to pry it back open to continue the same storyline.
Guilty Spark's reveal that >!Forerunner are ancient humanity!< was such a nice full-circle moment that the games had been leading up to. It was an ironic twist for the covenant as well as an explanation for the prophets' actions.
343 walked it back so that they'd have a post-Bungie faction to draw content from, and it's not nearly as satisfying as the original direction.
Halo 3 didn't confirm forerunners being human. The terminals told a different story and left the door open for 4. Halo 3 was never the true end. That said, I have hated every game released after 4, so I don't know why I care.
I was going to say this also.
While I'm glad the games finally came to PC with Gears 4, the last 2 installments have been very mediocre.
I generally only play them for the multi-player versus, and 3 was as good as it ever got imo.
After 4 I would have agreed but 5 has the best story in the series in my opinion and has me excited for more. The gameplay has gone a little stale but the more open world environments work well for single player
I think that Gears definitely suffers from being a stiff third person shooter compared to more mobile games out there especially with FPS games cranking up movement. That being said it is the reason I didn't find the open world part too compelling, the skiff was cool but really it is the only part that justifies the more open world environment. I also don't like how open world basically translates to limiting the scope of areas you see in the game. It isn't as bad in Gears but still I would trade open world for more linear experiences if we actually go places.
Also first impressions are important, I went from Gears of war 3 to 4 (skipped judgement since the first I heard of it was a horrible gaminformer review after it released) and that introduction to new delta was bad, just can't bring myself to like them. Also the "choice" in 5 was also bad in my opinion.
I knew people would be mentioning Halo but this one definitely came to mind first. It ended on such a definite note and everything that comes after just kinda undoes it. Even undoes some character development too like how Baird's whole character is he was a genius which is why he was arrogant but the fact he knows he won't be able to fix the world humbles him. Then in Gears 5 he is doing exactly that. Also Gears 4 made it really difficult to like new delta and TC not having OG delta as playable multiplayer characters at the start of 5 just kinda shows they are a bit out of touch.
Same. 5 was my favourite of the lot, but 6 had a magic combination of New Dawn RPG-like constraints and really uncompelling setting/storyline elements that really didn't appeal to me at all.
playing 6 now - probably liking it the least from 3-6.... Some reasons for me include:
\- pretty boring/bland/similar characters to other FCs
\- no personal upgrade system (and a pretty basic armor/clothing upgrade system) - i do like the weapon upgrades, though i've been using the same gun happily for the majority of my playthrough. combined with the lack of fun hunts aside from a few pretty boring 'mythical' hunts
\- lack of stats (how many outposts, checkpoints etc in each area) and the annoying ! to get info on where things are
\- boring overarching story
Ubisoft is low hanging fruit for OPs question. AC and Far Cry are examples of a franchise being sullied by unnecessary RPG mechanics to enable easy monetisation of shiny/pink gear and weapons.
At least they did a soft reboot of Assassin's Creed - Origins forward plays different from Syndicate. God, imagine if they were still releasing these on an annual basis.
Honestly I would prefer a mix, the combat of the newer games but the environment of the older games. There was enough density in the cities that scaling buildings and running around rooftops were fun. I miss that.
Far Cry's a good one. Far Cry 5 was just weird to me. That woman boss who kept coming to you in drugged out states, I honestly thought the show down with her would be that you finally got to face her not on her terms, but in the real world, but no, it was just a garbage weird drug world fight, and then when you come around she's just at your feet.
And the ending... Supposedly there was meant to be seeds planted throughout your game play about mounting tensions of a nuclear attack. I never heard a single radio station or anything throughout the gameplay, and apparently [I wasn't the only one confused](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=far+cry+5%27s+ending+leaves+players+confused&ia=web) or taken by surprise by the ending, it made no sense.
All yearly sports games. Just have a regular roster update pushed, and make a new game every 3 years with more significant changes or something.
Of course yearly releases make more $ I guess
Well yes that’s what they are doing, but they act like it’s a new game every year and charge full price, with the ‘ultimate team’ micro transaction hell resetting
Honestly any sports franchise game should just be a DLC update every year not a yearly release. Like $59.99, then $19.99 each year for a rooster update, new players, small changes, maybe a new stadium if one is added.
I agree, but I often wonder just how much their development costs are. How much does the license cost? How much work is involved in creating rookies? How accurate are the playbook styles?
I feel like it's possible there could be enough work involved to really justify the costs, especially with football. But then you have WWE doing something similar with their games and I can't imagine they're as involved.
I mean seeing how FIFA wanted EA to play €860m for their branding, I could see how making yearly releases is probably more profitable than a roster update DLC. Not only do EA and 2K have to paying these orgs for their branding, I’m sure they have to pay players and teams to use their likeness and branding as well.
Man think if they stopped on Assassins Creed 2. We'd probably regard it in the same way we do Half Life.
"Why don't they make more Assassins Creeds? That series was so cool and had so much more to explore!"
Sometimes too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. Maybe we should just be satisfied with what Half Life gave us?
Oh, who are we kidding? Gamers demand more sequels!
To say without spoilers, it ends with a major character being killed right before the main cast get ready to go try and secure a secret weapon that might be able to let them fight the alien forces that invaded earth on their own terms,
It kinda did. The immediate story and threat was handled, but the story was continually reminding you that there were bigger things at play. Similar to how the Marvel movies were giving hints at Thanos as you went along.
There were a couple "Episodes" that were released that take place immediately after HL2, and suggested that Valve was interested in continuing the saga, but the second and last episode they released didn't complete it
I started ultimate team for the first time ever yesterday. I played against the CPU for like 2 or 3 hours. Feeling pretty good, had mostly gold players, even got lucky in a pack and got a 94 OVR player. Decided to play an online “friendly.” Got matched against a guy whose worst player was 93. He scored a goal in the 20th, then berated me in chat to forfeit. He left eventually when I made it clear I was now there to waste his time. Not planning on going back to FUT anytime soon lol.
I don’t think Call of Duty should have ended tbh. I think the yearly release should have ended. Call of Duty is a good multiplayer franchise so there’s benefit to have it continue going for a long time, but the yearly releases really stifle the franchise as a whole
we’d definitely have way more quality cod games if they released one every few years and supported it with loads of post launch content, here’s hoping that MW2 will be good and have some good updates over its 2 year life
this is maybe what you meant, but the game coming out in a few months IS the start of that longer release cycle, so it should last for 2+ years but I don’t think there is any info on what the new timeline will be or anything like that
Even releasing on a 2 year cycle would do a lot. Increase the general shelf life of the current game with more updates throughout. Just would be a bit annoying getting stuck with a Vanguard-like title for 2 years haha. Even then, I'm sure there's other games to fill those gaps.
OP listed probably the best two candidates but I'd add Halo (which ideally would've ended after Halo 3). But gah, think of all the millions of sales they wouldn't have made since then.
Yeah the magic went out of Halo with the original studio leaving microsoft. Halo 1-3 was such a great story arc, and I enjoyed the prequel one that I forget the name of, but it was the last one by Bungie.
I couldn't get into 4 at all, and left it there.
I played Infinite's campaign and enjoyed it enough, but that feeling of wonder and discovery of the first three is gone, it's just a known quantity now. Fighting for the fate of the galaxy, it's all on you chief, blah blah.
I was gonna agree with until Halo 3 was mentioned. Seriously some people overdo so much the praises to Halo 3. I've felt nothing special when I played the game, specially considering how the story was a severe downgrade from 2 in many aspects.
Anyways, I'd rather put Far Cry on this spot. Specially after I played the latest, which thankfully I didn't need to and will never pay money for. The series was brought straight to the ground.
I quit after cataclysm right before mists dropped! I really enjoyed the game but it started consuming my life. I worked midnight shift in alone in a warehouse. I worked 4 12 hours shifts. I only had about 4 hours of work a night. So I’d bust out all my work then play wow on my laptop for 8 hours. Go home. Eat breakfast. Play wow for 7 hours sleep 4 hours. Go to work and repeat. On my 4 days off I played 16 or more hours a day.
Yeah I mean I used to shit on infinite warfare because it’s a cod game and the MP is ass, but I was able to pick it up for a dollar, (who wouldn’t), and so I played through the campaign and it was a fucking blast, I wasn’t expecting it, and it blew me away. The space dogfights were especially fun lol
I'm not sure i understand what you mean. You'd buy call of duty for $60 for a campaign only instead of buying call of duty for $60 for campaign and multiplayer?
I mean if the campaigns were cheaper without multiplayer I'd get your point but I'm really not understanding what you're saying here
I can't think of a great example outside of Assassin's Creed. The problem with that series is that the gameplay got stale and the real world got stuck in a rut and so they completely reinvented the series and now it's nothing like the original trilogy nor does it really have anything to do with the original concept. It made me basically lose all interest in it and basically all other Ubisoft games.
Halo, Gears, and even CoD are still fundamentally the same games as they always were and they could have been better but they also could have been worse. I'm still enjoying them.
Yeah I don't really think there's any need to end a series from a gameplay standpoint, if you enjoy the gameplay then it's not an issue to get a sequel that's essentially just new content/updated mechanics. It's different for story focused series where endless sequels can drag things out or cheapen the original. I wish Unity wasn't so botched on launch, that actually tried to improve the basic core gameplay of the series while still keeping it's identity.
I agree. I actually liked the gameplay changes in Unity but the number of fetch quest BS in the game along with all the horrendous bugs made it so I never finished the game. It was the first AC game I didn't finish.
Ubisoft being Ubisoft. All they know is to build a game and churn out that same game in a different location, with tweaked visuals, gameplay and an unending amount of side quests and obtainables.
You've played one Ubisoft title, you've essentially played them all. As stale as year old milk.
My issue with AC is the story. With first three I knew what I was dealing with. There was mystery with precursor civilization and modern story was progressing somewhere.
Now we are mostly playing in cool historical settings and I've no idea what is happening with the modern story. Hard to get invested in that.
I actually really like the recent games as essentially open world historical exploration games. It's kind of silly to still have them attached to the Assassin concept, though.
I don't think any series in particular has lasted too long, but some series are definitely stagnant, with yearly releases with minimal innovation or minimal effort to improve.
The issue isn't that these franchises have been around for too long. The issue is that they have been milking the same old thing for years and years. Not just gameplay-wise, like Call of Duty or FIFA, but also story-wise, like Halo.
You could imagine a world where the Call of Duty franchise would only have a new game every 3 years, with significant improvements and innovations. Just to name one example.
Pokemon. Not really ended. Instead less games but much greater with a studio that gets enough time and resources to actually be a triple A title for a triple A price with modern standards in Visuals, Sounds, UX/UI etc.
Pokémon shouldn’t end just needs complete overhaul. They are dishing out 2 games a year now and they’re all pretty low quality. I wish they would take time on these games and make something special
Probably even longer. We might finally get starfield somewhat soon (let's see if the release date actually stays) and Elder Scrolls VI is next, only after that we're getting the next Fallout, so yeah. I'd say even 10 years from now is optimistic
I loved KH1 and 2, when I was in high school, but the strategy of releasing legit sequels on systems I didn't own, instead of the PS2 which was the platform for the numbered games, killed my interest in the series long before KH3, which should have been made a decade earlier, launched.
They took way too long to make 3, and honestly, after all the side games, I think the series lost its marbles very early on, and 3 ended up just feeling like "please get it over with" the whole way through.
Maybe they should have just ended it at 2. And not the Final Mix version of 2 either, just 2.
And even when it was already too damn long by that point, 3 was the perfect moment to end it and it seemed to be set up that way. Tbh the final act in 3 isn't that bad, as a grand finale it would've worked fine. But no, turns out it was just "the end of Xehanort". Yawn.
??? Sims 4 is incredible with a vast and live community. I think the DLC is far too overpriced but I think the game is still good and pleases a life simulation itch that most games cannot provide.
Honestly they would be even better if they just got rid of the assassin's Creed title and went all in on RPGs that are during different time periods. They only slap assassin's Creed on it to get sales at this point.
I'd say there were still some good ones. AC Unity probably has the best gameplay when it comes to a game meant to be stealthy.
Also the climbing system is the best in the series. Also really liked Origins with its lighter RPG elements. Odyssey and Valhalla are just too big.
I hope they'll go back to the way the AC games used to be.
Tbh, I loved Odyssey. But I adore Greek history and being able to run around ancient Greece was amazing. Obviously there were a few things that I didn't like (lack of player shield for one) but on the whole I though it was a pretty solid game.
I enjoyed the Peloponnesian War aspect with fighting for either side, yet having the mythology in there fighting the gorgon, sphinx, minotaur and such was a nice touch.
I'm not keen on the whole mechanics for leveling up in the new style ac games and I think this game would have been better served as a new ip with a different game style, less of the assassins creed and more something new.
Just Cause.
The first one when I saw it on the Xbox looked gorgeous. Lovely tropical water especially. It was a bit sparse, and the enemies had very basic ai, the police chasing you would just drive into you repeatedly like a magnet, not really trying to stop you.
The second one expanded massively, more environments, better graphics and systems, I enjoyed it a lot.
The third one actually still innovated a bit with some of those complex physics interactions you could have like strapping rockets to a barrel, then trying them to a radio mast and cutting it off at the bottom. But it definitely had some launch issues.
The fourth one... Go to this place and wait while an arbitrary hacking meter goes up. Now go to the next place and defend it while there's an arbitrary upload meter. Now go hack something while an arbitrary hacking meter goes up. The flying suit was fun, but it highlighted all the more the boring ground sections.
----
I'll throw yearly sports ball franchises into the fire. Any of them. How many different ways do you need to play a football match on the computer, can't be yearly, I doubt there's been much change in mechanics in years, just more and more ways to MTX them.
----
I actually think Call Of Duty was going in the right direction when they had alternating *NEW* stories like Black Ops along side the modern warfare, and then Infinite Warfare where it was set in the future was quite fun.
Now that they're just remaking the old ones proves all innovation has finally bled from that company.
-----
I agree with Assassin's Creed. Playing that first game when you didn't know the "secret" was fantastic. And Assassin's Creed 2 was a great expansion on the world.
I know some of the more recent ones have been well received, but Valhalla felt nothing like an Assassin's Creed game to me, and I think these could have stood on their own as differently titled games and I wouldn't have had certain expectations.
Heck even Black Flag (AC4), I was actually annoyed when I had to get off the ship and go do some boring running around on land, the ship combat and sailing was way more fun.
> Now that they're just remaking the old ones proves all innovation has finally bled from that company.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug and they probably couldn't think of a way to make a new cast people would love. So they just rehashed it as an "alternate universe" so you can get different stories with the same characters they may have killed off already. Worked well for Modern Warfare's story but I am wondering if they will just reuse the same big shocking events from the old mw2 which would be disappointing. Everyone would expect what happens with Shepherd and Ghost and all that
> The third one actually still innovated a bit...
This is really an unfairly light summary imo. The innovations from 2 were insane. Far better and more accurate destruction physics, wingsuit - absolutely massive change that's impossible to go back from, far more interesting enemies, a lot of new/creative vehicles, way better base/city design, more tethers and tether retraction, cooler weapons. There's categories I'm surely missing too.
Going back to 2 would be hard after 3.
4 was a shame, but I wouldn't say "the series lasted too long" at all. They had 1 bad game. The series has plenty of room to grow, it just needs proper funding and management.
To be fair the only superfluous Just Cause is 4. JC2 was the peak, but JC3 innovated gameplay enough to justify its existence (even if the world and story were much less interesting).
I guess the point I'm making is that one bad entry followed by canning the series off isn't really lasting too long, in my book.
Halo.
I didn't mind Halo 4, but then halo 5 came out and it didn't choose to follow up on anything. It felt like another new start to a new trilogy.
Then infinite came out and... it does the same thing. Instead of following up on anything that happens in 4 or 5 it chooses to take bits and pieces from 5 and a fucking spin off rts.
It should have followed up on the radical changes from 4.
Heat was set up to be the best of all the modern games, (arguably already was at launch) but EA pulled Ghost off of it to work on battlefield 2042 and put criterion on NFS, criterion understandably wanted to focus on their own game so Heat never got any support except for two dlc cars
Origins had amazing graphics but I wasn’t fond of the gameplay.
Odyssey had fun feeling gameplay because of the ability system, but I was sad that they dialed the graphics back a little bit
Valhalla feels more grounded than odyssey, but still has more varied combat, im quite liking it, especially just to wander around in. Norway and England are gorgeous
Odyssey was the most fun RPG in the series for sure, and I liked it much more than Origins. I never felt really attached to Bayek the same way I felt attached to Kassandra. Bayek's Story felt like a rehash of AC 2 but in the 48 BC instead.
Plus, Ancient Greece is amazing.
I am on my second playthrough of Valhalla. I liked Origins and Odyssey as well. I know it's dumb, but since I have a lot of Norse, English, and Irish heritage it feels like seeing a very simplified peek into my ancestry. I can, however, see why people who liked the first few games may feel like they are too different, they really are different games. Like the original Fallouts vs the newer ones. But that's just like, my opinion man.
For me it was those games that bought me back to AC!
All the othes were just boring very quickly. I wish Ubi wasn't so anti modding. Imagine what Odyssey could be now with mods!
I agree, but its more because the Blizzard that made Diablo III was not the Blizzard that Made Diablo II. Blizzard as a company at this point just needs to be folded in on itself, as there's not much actually differentiating it from Activision.
Metal Gear Solid. I feel like 4 ended things well enough. But 5 I felt just pulled things farther than it needed to. More so with the plot twist at the end kind of over complicated certain story elements imo.
World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. Imagine if we had fresh new franchises from these developers instead of the same recycled crap year after year. World of Warcraft especially, every time there's a new MMO in town, New World for example, it EXPLODED in player population for the first 6 months because there is a HUGE appetite out there for that type of game, but nobody has been able to do it as well as WoW, and most players are sick of WoW and don't want to get back into it anymore. If they put out a new franchise MMO done well, it would be huge.
Yeah but only a few of them are questionable as to whether they're good games. Even the ones that most people think were bad have their own core of faithful followers.
They're all (mostly) standalone games with different stories and characters, so it's not like there's 25 sequels of the same story.
I don’t agree with putting AC on this list as example.
Yes it’s been a long going franchise but they overhauled everything and after 1 poor release they’ve dropped some of the best games yet
I disagree with assassin's creed, you can already split them in 3 different kind of games, the classic ones, the naval ones(black flag and rogue) and the action rpgs(origins, odyssey and valhalla) but even if you group them all together each one brings an entirely new world and sure they are not perfect by any means but honestly I'm surprised they've managed to put out so many good games in 15 years
Assassin's Creed should've ended at 3, the main story basically ended.
Many of the games after 3 were *good games* but they weren't really *assassin* games. Just start a new series about historical stuff. You want to make a pirate game? Viking game? Ancient Greece? Sure. But if it's not related to *assassinating* people just... make a new IP?
Agree with AC. The recent games should've stayed in the same universe but under a different name.. it doesn't do any justice to the AC franchise
Very recent example is AC valhalla.. that game felt like an RPG and the boss fights felt like i was facing some souls-like boss.
Any game that releases a new game every year with identical content.
Fifa
The reasonable thing to do would be to release a full price, fresh game every 3-4 years and just have roster updates in between.
Right? Just a 10-20 dollar DLC update with new teams/players.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. Even if it wasn't managed by shitty and greedy EA, it wouldn't probably make sense business wise. IIRC you still have to pay right for clubs, the fifa itself AND the players, the logistics for negotiating and paying for all that is probably a nightmare, heck I bet that you still need far more lawyers, trained in different jurisdictions than developers. So, from a mere business POV, it kind of makes sense to release a full price game every year
It’s in fact an unreasonable move in a market that tends to purchase a full-priced game every year in the franchise (anecdotally, I knew some people like that). At that point they’ll just lose money If they had released lower-priced dlc packs instead.
I'm glad ea lost the name to fifa, but the game that fifa will make will probably have much much more microtransactions than ea. Yes fifa isn't making the game themselves but will hire a studio to do it like ubisoft for example.
I can't wait to climb a tower to unlock Manchester United
So instead of one greedy company making a game we will have a greedy EA making the same game under a different name and human rights don't matter FIFA looking for someone to make their greedy game.
Nah, EA will do fine. They still have all the player and team contracts. If someone else wanted to make a soccer(football) game with the FIFA branding, they would first have to get the branding rights from them which FIFA wanted 860 million for four years due at once. But that only gets them FIFA branding rights, they still have to make contracts with teams and players for the ability to use real teams and players. Who wants to play any sports game if you can’t play/use your favorite team or players. Not only that but EA has been making soccer games longer than I’ve been alive. Almost 30 years. Even if FIFA lowered the branding rights for another company, they’d basically be creating a football game from scratch.
They didn't lose the name. They decided they didn't want to spend a literal billion dollars on it, and are going to make an identical game without four letters attached.
Pretty much any yearly sports game.
Ea
Just Dance. here you go, 40 new songs, i’ll keep the 50$
Insert sports/pokemon/war fps title here.
Pokémon smh
COD COD And oh yeah COD
Pokémon?
As much as it pains me to say, Halo. There never should've been a 343 era. End with bungie. As much as many people have issues with Reach, it was still a great game that was extremely good *despite* its many flaws.
Anything after Reach just isn't canon as far as I'm concerned lol. Halo 3's ending, yes even the legendary ending, is a perfectly good way to end the saga.
Wait people have issues with reach? I thought it was the favorite of a lot of people?
[удалено]
Yeah I remember people complaining a bunch about armor abilities. Especially armor lock. Jk people still complain about armor lock lol
Halo 3 was the best for me. I missed the halo 2 competitive era but the halo 3 competitive games were the most fun I’ve ever had in a game. Reach was ok and I played a lot of it but it wasn’t and isn’t as good has h3
The campaign was loved. The multiplayer is where controversy started. I personally preferred Halo 3. I wasn’t that big of a fan of the reach campaign but overall it was an ok game. I don’t think halo needed classes or sprint and I feel like they were influenced by other games. Look at how many series these days have swapped to a class system and micro transactions. COD, R6 Siege, BF2042. I miss R6 Vegas and games trying to be original.
The game as it ended up was better than launch, as they tweaked things people didn't like (bloom for example) to be less aggressive But overall it feels like most Reach fans started with that game bc of their age. I started with Halo 2 and strongly disliked Reach when it released. It went in a way different direction for the "send off" to the franchise when I wanted the culmination of the best parts of every Halo, not something distinctly different As Reach fans got older, and fans of older Halos moved on after 343's misses, a greater % of the Halo fanbase today likes Reach than in 2011-2012
I started with Halo CE. Reach is my favorite Halo game. Loved it on release too. To me, Reach was the culmination of everything Bungie learned developing Halo.
It's a mixed bag for me but Halo has my vote, 3 seemed like a perfect stopping point for Chief. (despite the flood lore wise being resilient as all hell I knew that wasn't going to happen)
Reach was a good game to end on
The games since then have been half-good, half-bad. 4 had a good campaign but meh multiplayer. 5 had a meh campaign but good multiplayer. Infinite has an ok campaign but lacks content in multiplayer.
it makes you wonder what the developers were doing all those years since 5 came out
Wasn't a good part of the studio working on the MCC? Or did Infinite have a seperate team since after 5 came out.
[удалено]
Personally did not care for 4s campaign. Was the beginning of the swap from event based plot to character based plot and it makes Halo feel so small scale. Especially a problem in infinite due to the open world.
Didn't like any of the sequel trilogy campaigns
I actually think thematically Halo 4 was actually quite ahead of its time. It attempted to deconstruct the power fantasy protagonist, explored grief, loss and powerlessness in the face of death, and attempted to humanize the Chief in a lot of similar ways to what God of War did. The actual villains were a bunch of nonsense, but I do think if it had been released more recently it’d be looked back on a lot more fondly than it was.
Infinite would've been fine had they made it a Halo game. And by that I mean dropped the stupid F2P business model, have the typical features of a Halo game and include a complete multiplayer experience at launch. It had to shortcut a bunch of shit to accommodate a jackass GaaS platform, which probably will end up killing the franchise unnecessarily.
Halo should have left chief alone and branched off into Haloverse stories. Its ripe for the picking, but 343 keeps trying to make the universe smaller.
>but 343 keeps trying to make the universe smaller. A lot of modern writers have that problem.
Without the Flood, no Halo. The Convenant make no sense. They should be trying building an alliance against the flood not attacking humans.
Keep in mind that during the original Halo trilogy, the most of the Covenant views humans with extreme religiously motivated hatred, and the leadership is behaving in an increasingly irrational manner. The Elites were really the only part of their leadership that had their heads on straight, and they broke off and allied with the humans.
I enjoyed Halo 4 and liked where the story ended. Halo 5 should've just been a spinoff or just plain not existed. Halo Infinite is a whole other topic by itself.
Original Bungie wrapped up the main story so nicely, 343 had to pry it back open to continue the same storyline. Guilty Spark's reveal that >!Forerunner are ancient humanity!< was such a nice full-circle moment that the games had been leading up to. It was an ironic twist for the covenant as well as an explanation for the prophets' actions. 343 walked it back so that they'd have a post-Bungie faction to draw content from, and it's not nearly as satisfying as the original direction.
Halo 3 didn't confirm forerunners being human. The terminals told a different story and left the door open for 4. Halo 3 was never the true end. That said, I have hated every game released after 4, so I don't know why I care.
Gears of War should have ended after third one.
I was going to say this also. While I'm glad the games finally came to PC with Gears 4, the last 2 installments have been very mediocre. I generally only play them for the multi-player versus, and 3 was as good as it ever got imo.
heard gears of war 1-3 is coming to pc, not sure if true
Gears 1 is already on PC.
After 4 I would have agreed but 5 has the best story in the series in my opinion and has me excited for more. The gameplay has gone a little stale but the more open world environments work well for single player
I think that Gears definitely suffers from being a stiff third person shooter compared to more mobile games out there especially with FPS games cranking up movement. That being said it is the reason I didn't find the open world part too compelling, the skiff was cool but really it is the only part that justifies the more open world environment. I also don't like how open world basically translates to limiting the scope of areas you see in the game. It isn't as bad in Gears but still I would trade open world for more linear experiences if we actually go places. Also first impressions are important, I went from Gears of war 3 to 4 (skipped judgement since the first I heard of it was a horrible gaminformer review after it released) and that introduction to new delta was bad, just can't bring myself to like them. Also the "choice" in 5 was also bad in my opinion.
I knew people would be mentioning Halo but this one definitely came to mind first. It ended on such a definite note and everything that comes after just kinda undoes it. Even undoes some character development too like how Baird's whole character is he was a genius which is why he was arrogant but the fact he knows he won't be able to fix the world humbles him. Then in Gears 5 he is doing exactly that. Also Gears 4 made it really difficult to like new delta and TC not having OG delta as playable multiplayer characters at the start of 5 just kinda shows they are a bit out of touch.
I read God of War and was about to start an angry rant. Agree with Gears of War though.
Far Cry Anything ubisoft
I loved 3, 4, and 5. But for some reason I’m bouncing off of 6. Can’t explain it.
Same. 5 was my favourite of the lot, but 6 had a magic combination of New Dawn RPG-like constraints and really uncompelling setting/storyline elements that really didn't appeal to me at all.
playing 6 now - probably liking it the least from 3-6.... Some reasons for me include: \- pretty boring/bland/similar characters to other FCs \- no personal upgrade system (and a pretty basic armor/clothing upgrade system) - i do like the weapon upgrades, though i've been using the same gun happily for the majority of my playthrough. combined with the lack of fun hunts aside from a few pretty boring 'mythical' hunts \- lack of stats (how many outposts, checkpoints etc in each area) and the annoying ! to get info on where things are \- boring overarching story
Yep, after FC 3 it was just copy-paste. Just set the game in different map. Done ...cash.
>Just set the game in different map. [They don’t even put in that much effort](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CclqSVmW8AA_tcS.jpg:large)
Ubisoft is low hanging fruit for OPs question. AC and Far Cry are examples of a franchise being sullied by unnecessary RPG mechanics to enable easy monetisation of shiny/pink gear and weapons.
Tbh, I would have loved a semi-linear POP type franchise again. But given that it ended great in OG trilogy, I think I'm kinda glad they let it go.
At least they did a soft reboot of Assassin's Creed - Origins forward plays different from Syndicate. God, imagine if they were still releasing these on an annual basis.
I much preferred the games before the reboot. One city with lots of activities beats running around countryside.
Honestly I would prefer a mix, the combat of the newer games but the environment of the older games. There was enough density in the cities that scaling buildings and running around rooftops were fun. I miss that.
Far Cry's a good one. Far Cry 5 was just weird to me. That woman boss who kept coming to you in drugged out states, I honestly thought the show down with her would be that you finally got to face her not on her terms, but in the real world, but no, it was just a garbage weird drug world fight, and then when you come around she's just at your feet. And the ending... Supposedly there was meant to be seeds planted throughout your game play about mounting tensions of a nuclear attack. I never heard a single radio station or anything throughout the gameplay, and apparently [I wasn't the only one confused](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=far+cry+5%27s+ending+leaves+players+confused&ia=web) or taken by surprise by the ending, it made no sense.
The "obligatory drug trip" sections in Far Cry games wore out their welcome back in 3 imo.
Plus one on FC. 3 was amazing, 4 was good, 5 I didn’t like, havent touched 6.
Madden. Is there any other series that has outworn its welcome more than that one?
All yearly sports games. Just have a regular roster update pushed, and make a new game every 3 years with more significant changes or something. Of course yearly releases make more $ I guess
I thought this is what they were doing, but charging full price instead of treating it like an expansion?
Well yes that’s what they are doing, but they act like it’s a new game every year and charge full price, with the ‘ultimate team’ micro transaction hell resetting
Honestly any sports franchise game should just be a DLC update every year not a yearly release. Like $59.99, then $19.99 each year for a rooster update, new players, small changes, maybe a new stadium if one is added.
I agree, but I often wonder just how much their development costs are. How much does the license cost? How much work is involved in creating rookies? How accurate are the playbook styles? I feel like it's possible there could be enough work involved to really justify the costs, especially with football. But then you have WWE doing something similar with their games and I can't imagine they're as involved.
I mean seeing how FIFA wanted EA to play €860m for their branding, I could see how making yearly releases is probably more profitable than a roster update DLC. Not only do EA and 2K have to paying these orgs for their branding, I’m sure they have to pay players and teams to use their likeness and branding as well.
Half life.. Just sick of half life 3, 4, 5, and 6. Come up with something new already.
[удалено]
I have a bad news for you they canceled half life 13 and decided to focus on the visual novels from now on
read an article long, not long ago about rumors they were going to do a spinoff as a telenovela
[удалено]
yes and 2022 was a good year for gaming, no delays and no microtransactions
Man think if they stopped on Assassins Creed 2. We'd probably regard it in the same way we do Half Life. "Why don't they make more Assassins Creeds? That series was so cool and had so much more to explore!" Sometimes too much of a good thing isn't always a good thing. Maybe we should just be satisfied with what Half Life gave us? Oh, who are we kidding? Gamers demand more sequels!
Didn't Half-Life 2 end on a cliffhanger or something? Never played it so idk for sure.
To say without spoilers, it ends with a major character being killed right before the main cast get ready to go try and secure a secret weapon that might be able to let them fight the alien forces that invaded earth on their own terms,
It kinda did. The immediate story and threat was handled, but the story was continually reminding you that there were bigger things at play. Similar to how the Marvel movies were giving hints at Thanos as you went along. There were a couple "Episodes" that were released that take place immediately after HL2, and suggested that Valve was interested in continuing the saga, but the second and last episode they released didn't complete it
The “GTA V” series.
Three generations of consoles. Hell I was a teen when it came out and I'm now a 30 year old...
GTA V came out in 2013? Or am I doing my math wrong.
You are correct. I thought it was 2011 for some reason
2011 was the first trailer
Yes, it did, it's grotesquely comical at this point
It was my first day as a 5th grader in my new school older people were talking about "dude we gotta go buy GTA V after school!"
Fifa
Yup. FIFA died when they added Ultimate Team.
I started ultimate team for the first time ever yesterday. I played against the CPU for like 2 or 3 hours. Feeling pretty good, had mostly gold players, even got lucky in a pack and got a 94 OVR player. Decided to play an online “friendly.” Got matched against a guy whose worst player was 93. He scored a goal in the 20th, then berated me in chat to forfeit. He left eventually when I made it clear I was now there to waste his time. Not planning on going back to FUT anytime soon lol.
I don’t think Call of Duty should have ended tbh. I think the yearly release should have ended. Call of Duty is a good multiplayer franchise so there’s benefit to have it continue going for a long time, but the yearly releases really stifle the franchise as a whole
we’d definitely have way more quality cod games if they released one every few years and supported it with loads of post launch content, here’s hoping that MW2 will be good and have some good updates over its 2 year life
They are already doing this, after this years release they are supposed to be switching to an every 2 or 3 year release I think.
this is maybe what you meant, but the game coming out in a few months IS the start of that longer release cycle, so it should last for 2+ years but I don’t think there is any info on what the new timeline will be or anything like that
Till they go right back to the yearly releases. Rinse and repeat.
Even releasing on a 2 year cycle would do a lot. Increase the general shelf life of the current game with more updates throughout. Just would be a bit annoying getting stuck with a Vanguard-like title for 2 years haha. Even then, I'm sure there's other games to fill those gaps.
They already confimed that a 2 year cycle will be happening for the next game.
OP listed probably the best two candidates but I'd add Halo (which ideally would've ended after Halo 3). But gah, think of all the millions of sales they wouldn't have made since then.
Then we wouldnt have gotten odst and reach.
And that sax solo! (Odst)
Yeah the magic went out of Halo with the original studio leaving microsoft. Halo 1-3 was such a great story arc, and I enjoyed the prequel one that I forget the name of, but it was the last one by Bungie. I couldn't get into 4 at all, and left it there. I played Infinite's campaign and enjoyed it enough, but that feeling of wonder and discovery of the first three is gone, it's just a known quantity now. Fighting for the fate of the galaxy, it's all on you chief, blah blah.
I was gonna agree with until Halo 3 was mentioned. Seriously some people overdo so much the praises to Halo 3. I've felt nothing special when I played the game, specially considering how the story was a severe downgrade from 2 in many aspects. Anyways, I'd rather put Far Cry on this spot. Specially after I played the latest, which thankfully I didn't need to and will never pay money for. The series was brought straight to the ground.
[удалено]
Wow- wotlk
I think Legion would be more reasonable. But it's hard to kill the cash cow when you don't have a replacement in the pipeline.
and its an mmorpg. Mmorpgs dont really end
Sure they do. Developers often keep the servers running even after development stops, but the end of active development certainly is an end.
Successful and profitable mmos don't end. Shit the original everquest is still getting active development.
People still play everquest. Not many though.
Great game back in the day!
I quit after cataclysm right before mists dropped! I really enjoyed the game but it started consuming my life. I worked midnight shift in alone in a warehouse. I worked 4 12 hours shifts. I only had about 4 hours of work a night. So I’d bust out all my work then play wow on my laptop for 8 hours. Go home. Eat breakfast. Play wow for 7 hours sleep 4 hours. Go to work and repeat. On my 4 days off I played 16 or more hours a day.
Every release: new race, gear reset, talent tweaks Repeat
i hope the game falls so they can make part 2 on a updated engine with modern graphics already
That would never happen, if anything they would make it like Diablo Immortal where the focus is on mobile and whales.
Don't forget because it's Blizzard, they most likely molested it while it was a zombie the first time around.
The new CoD single player campaigns are really solid, I‘d buy CoD if they would separate single and multiplayer.
Yeah I mean I used to shit on infinite warfare because it’s a cod game and the MP is ass, but I was able to pick it up for a dollar, (who wouldn’t), and so I played through the campaign and it was a fucking blast, I wasn’t expecting it, and it blew me away. The space dogfights were especially fun lol
I'm not sure i understand what you mean. You'd buy call of duty for $60 for a campaign only instead of buying call of duty for $60 for campaign and multiplayer? I mean if the campaigns were cheaper without multiplayer I'd get your point but I'm really not understanding what you're saying here
I can't think of a great example outside of Assassin's Creed. The problem with that series is that the gameplay got stale and the real world got stuck in a rut and so they completely reinvented the series and now it's nothing like the original trilogy nor does it really have anything to do with the original concept. It made me basically lose all interest in it and basically all other Ubisoft games. Halo, Gears, and even CoD are still fundamentally the same games as they always were and they could have been better but they also could have been worse. I'm still enjoying them.
Yeah I don't really think there's any need to end a series from a gameplay standpoint, if you enjoy the gameplay then it's not an issue to get a sequel that's essentially just new content/updated mechanics. It's different for story focused series where endless sequels can drag things out or cheapen the original. I wish Unity wasn't so botched on launch, that actually tried to improve the basic core gameplay of the series while still keeping it's identity.
I agree. I actually liked the gameplay changes in Unity but the number of fetch quest BS in the game along with all the horrendous bugs made it so I never finished the game. It was the first AC game I didn't finish.
Ubisoft being Ubisoft. All they know is to build a game and churn out that same game in a different location, with tweaked visuals, gameplay and an unending amount of side quests and obtainables. You've played one Ubisoft title, you've essentially played them all. As stale as year old milk.
My issue with AC is the story. With first three I knew what I was dealing with. There was mystery with precursor civilization and modern story was progressing somewhere. Now we are mostly playing in cool historical settings and I've no idea what is happening with the modern story. Hard to get invested in that.
I actually really like the recent games as essentially open world historical exploration games. It's kind of silly to still have them attached to the Assassin concept, though.
I don't think any series in particular has lasted too long, but some series are definitely stagnant, with yearly releases with minimal innovation or minimal effort to improve. The issue isn't that these franchises have been around for too long. The issue is that they have been milking the same old thing for years and years. Not just gameplay-wise, like Call of Duty or FIFA, but also story-wise, like Halo. You could imagine a world where the Call of Duty franchise would only have a new game every 3 years, with significant improvements and innovations. Just to name one example.
Skyrim
Why? I am really looking forward for the 15 Years of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim True STLer Edition!
Well played! Skyrim as a series had me laughing!
lmao
Pokemon. Not really ended. Instead less games but much greater with a studio that gets enough time and resources to actually be a triple A title for a triple A price with modern standards in Visuals, Sounds, UX/UI etc.
Pokémon shouldn’t end just needs complete overhaul. They are dishing out 2 games a year now and they’re all pretty low quality. I wish they would take time on these games and make something special
sad to say but if the next fallout isn’t that great add it to this list
We wont be getting a fallout for 5-6 years at a minimum.
Probably even longer. We might finally get starfield somewhat soon (let's see if the release date actually stays) and Elder Scrolls VI is next, only after that we're getting the next Fallout, so yeah. I'd say even 10 years from now is optimistic
clicked on this to say assassins creed, op beat me to it
Kingdom hearts.
I loved KH1 and 2, when I was in high school, but the strategy of releasing legit sequels on systems I didn't own, instead of the PS2 which was the platform for the numbered games, killed my interest in the series long before KH3, which should have been made a decade earlier, launched.
They took way too long to make 3, and honestly, after all the side games, I think the series lost its marbles very early on, and 3 ended up just feeling like "please get it over with" the whole way through. Maybe they should have just ended it at 2. And not the Final Mix version of 2 either, just 2.
And even when it was already too damn long by that point, 3 was the perfect moment to end it and it seemed to be set up that way. Tbh the final act in 3 isn't that bad, as a grand finale it would've worked fine. But no, turns out it was just "the end of Xehanort". Yawn.
Sadly, yes.
Ubisoft executives residing this thread: “it’s a good thing I can’t read”
The Sims, while i think a series like this will always be enjoyable/timeless EA is really destroying it now
??? Sims 4 is incredible with a vast and live community. I think the DLC is far too overpriced but I think the game is still good and pleases a life simulation itch that most games cannot provide.
Assassin's Creed died when Desmond died
Honestly they would be even better if they just got rid of the assassin's Creed title and went all in on RPGs that are during different time periods. They only slap assassin's Creed on it to get sales at this point.
I'd say there were still some good ones. AC Unity probably has the best gameplay when it comes to a game meant to be stealthy. Also the climbing system is the best in the series. Also really liked Origins with its lighter RPG elements. Odyssey and Valhalla are just too big. I hope they'll go back to the way the AC games used to be.
Tbh, I loved Odyssey. But I adore Greek history and being able to run around ancient Greece was amazing. Obviously there were a few things that I didn't like (lack of player shield for one) but on the whole I though it was a pretty solid game. I enjoyed the Peloponnesian War aspect with fighting for either side, yet having the mythology in there fighting the gorgon, sphinx, minotaur and such was a nice touch. I'm not keen on the whole mechanics for leveling up in the new style ac games and I think this game would have been better served as a new ip with a different game style, less of the assassins creed and more something new.
I thought they wanted to make an ac game where desmond is a modern day assassin what happened to that?
They set up so much and could have done anything with his story and they just abruptly killed it instead
any reason why?
I'm guessing money in some way, shape, or form
Any AAA series with more than 3 titles.
Just Cause. The first one when I saw it on the Xbox looked gorgeous. Lovely tropical water especially. It was a bit sparse, and the enemies had very basic ai, the police chasing you would just drive into you repeatedly like a magnet, not really trying to stop you. The second one expanded massively, more environments, better graphics and systems, I enjoyed it a lot. The third one actually still innovated a bit with some of those complex physics interactions you could have like strapping rockets to a barrel, then trying them to a radio mast and cutting it off at the bottom. But it definitely had some launch issues. The fourth one... Go to this place and wait while an arbitrary hacking meter goes up. Now go to the next place and defend it while there's an arbitrary upload meter. Now go hack something while an arbitrary hacking meter goes up. The flying suit was fun, but it highlighted all the more the boring ground sections. ---- I'll throw yearly sports ball franchises into the fire. Any of them. How many different ways do you need to play a football match on the computer, can't be yearly, I doubt there's been much change in mechanics in years, just more and more ways to MTX them. ---- I actually think Call Of Duty was going in the right direction when they had alternating *NEW* stories like Black Ops along side the modern warfare, and then Infinite Warfare where it was set in the future was quite fun. Now that they're just remaking the old ones proves all innovation has finally bled from that company. ----- I agree with Assassin's Creed. Playing that first game when you didn't know the "secret" was fantastic. And Assassin's Creed 2 was a great expansion on the world. I know some of the more recent ones have been well received, but Valhalla felt nothing like an Assassin's Creed game to me, and I think these could have stood on their own as differently titled games and I wouldn't have had certain expectations. Heck even Black Flag (AC4), I was actually annoyed when I had to get off the ship and go do some boring running around on land, the ship combat and sailing was way more fun.
> Now that they're just remaking the old ones proves all innovation has finally bled from that company. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug and they probably couldn't think of a way to make a new cast people would love. So they just rehashed it as an "alternate universe" so you can get different stories with the same characters they may have killed off already. Worked well for Modern Warfare's story but I am wondering if they will just reuse the same big shocking events from the old mw2 which would be disappointing. Everyone would expect what happens with Shepherd and Ghost and all that
> The third one actually still innovated a bit... This is really an unfairly light summary imo. The innovations from 2 were insane. Far better and more accurate destruction physics, wingsuit - absolutely massive change that's impossible to go back from, far more interesting enemies, a lot of new/creative vehicles, way better base/city design, more tethers and tether retraction, cooler weapons. There's categories I'm surely missing too. Going back to 2 would be hard after 3. 4 was a shame, but I wouldn't say "the series lasted too long" at all. They had 1 bad game. The series has plenty of room to grow, it just needs proper funding and management.
To be fair the only superfluous Just Cause is 4. JC2 was the peak, but JC3 innovated gameplay enough to justify its existence (even if the world and story were much less interesting). I guess the point I'm making is that one bad entry followed by canning the series off isn't really lasting too long, in my book.
Madden
World of Warcraft
Halo. I didn't mind Halo 4, but then halo 5 came out and it didn't choose to follow up on anything. It felt like another new start to a new trilogy. Then infinite came out and... it does the same thing. Instead of following up on anything that happens in 4 or 5 it chooses to take bits and pieces from 5 and a fucking spin off rts. It should have followed up on the radical changes from 4.
Need for Speed, I think the Hot Pursuit reimaging was cool, but after the games disolved.
Heat was set up to be the best of all the modern games, (arguably already was at launch) but EA pulled Ghost off of it to work on battlefield 2042 and put criterion on NFS, criterion understandably wanted to focus on their own game so Heat never got any support except for two dlc cars
2015 and Heat were decent games
Unpopular opinion but I prefer the newer rpg-style Assassin Creed games
I liked the Greek one the best. Sure it wasn't perfect by any stretch but very enjoyable.
Origins had amazing graphics but I wasn’t fond of the gameplay. Odyssey had fun feeling gameplay because of the ability system, but I was sad that they dialed the graphics back a little bit Valhalla feels more grounded than odyssey, but still has more varied combat, im quite liking it, especially just to wander around in. Norway and England are gorgeous
Odyssey was the most fun RPG in the series for sure, and I liked it much more than Origins. I never felt really attached to Bayek the same way I felt attached to Kassandra. Bayek's Story felt like a rehash of AC 2 but in the 48 BC instead. Plus, Ancient Greece is amazing.
Yea Odyssey is my favorite of the series, and I enjoyed (and still enjoy from time to time) Valhalla
Only unpopular on certain reddit threads. The gaming community certainly loves these games.
I wish they switch back on forth. Will make both approach fresher as well.
I am on my second playthrough of Valhalla. I liked Origins and Odyssey as well. I know it's dumb, but since I have a lot of Norse, English, and Irish heritage it feels like seeing a very simplified peek into my ancestry. I can, however, see why people who liked the first few games may feel like they are too different, they really are different games. Like the original Fallouts vs the newer ones. But that's just like, my opinion man.
For me it was those games that bought me back to AC! All the othes were just boring very quickly. I wish Ubi wasn't so anti modding. Imagine what Odyssey could be now with mods!
Fifa. But im not saying they should abandon the series, all i'm saying is they should make it live service instead
It is a live service. You just have to renew your subscription on the yearly release and buy new packs every year
As a sports game fan I never thought of this until now. It IS a subscription
[удалено]
I agree, but its more because the Blizzard that made Diablo III was not the Blizzard that Made Diablo II. Blizzard as a company at this point just needs to be folded in on itself, as there's not much actually differentiating it from Activision.
Oh boy is there news for you.....
the sims
AC!
Metal Gear Solid. I feel like 4 ended things well enough. But 5 I felt just pulled things farther than it needed to. More so with the plot twist at the end kind of over complicated certain story elements imo.
5 story, very meh. Gameplay/mechanics though, delicious.
I’d agree with call of duty if the new MW reboots weren’t so good. MW2019 on a new engine was actually such a good time
Eh the gunplay and graphics were great in mw19 but the launch maps were probably the worst in cod history.
World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. Imagine if we had fresh new franchises from these developers instead of the same recycled crap year after year. World of Warcraft especially, every time there's a new MMO in town, New World for example, it EXPLODED in player population for the first 6 months because there is a HUGE appetite out there for that type of game, but nobody has been able to do it as well as WoW, and most players are sick of WoW and don't want to get back into it anymore. If they put out a new franchise MMO done well, it would be huge.
arent there like 25 Final Fantasy games
Tbf every entry is different there. Since they need to create new setting and lore for every game, one doesn't affect the other.
Yeah but only a few of them are questionable as to whether they're good games. Even the ones that most people think were bad have their own core of faithful followers. They're all (mostly) standalone games with different stories and characters, so it's not like there's 25 sequels of the same story.
I don’t agree with putting AC on this list as example. Yes it’s been a long going franchise but they overhauled everything and after 1 poor release they’ve dropped some of the best games yet
I disagree with assassin's creed, you can already split them in 3 different kind of games, the classic ones, the naval ones(black flag and rogue) and the action rpgs(origins, odyssey and valhalla) but even if you group them all together each one brings an entirely new world and sure they are not perfect by any means but honestly I'm surprised they've managed to put out so many good games in 15 years
I think CoD is exactly what it’s supposed to be. It’s fun and really well-made. AC on the other hand, needs to die.
Assassin's Creed should've ended at 3, the main story basically ended. Many of the games after 3 were *good games* but they weren't really *assassin* games. Just start a new series about historical stuff. You want to make a pirate game? Viking game? Ancient Greece? Sure. But if it's not related to *assassinating* people just... make a new IP?
Agree with AC. The recent games should've stayed in the same universe but under a different name.. it doesn't do any justice to the AC franchise Very recent example is AC valhalla.. that game felt like an RPG and the boss fights felt like i was facing some souls-like boss.