LogFAQs > #890373338

Honestly, I'm very accepting of both.

If a series has nothing but good games, and I see people whining about how the publisher won't put out another installment, my instinctive reaction is, "Come on, guys. It had a good run. Enjoy what we got and be grateful that it never went bad."

On the other hand, if a series I like gets a bad game, there are really only two possibilities. One, I don't buy it, in which case it being bad doesn't really affect me. Two, I buy it just because I'm such a hardcore fan, in which case I'll probably get sufficient enjoyment out of it no matter how bad it is. Even worst case scenario, I can hardly blame the publisher or developer for my poor buying decision.

But I voted "series getting axed" because I think that's usually the better outcome. After all, what the video game industry most needs right now isn't more sequels (and certainly not more bad sequels); it's more standalone games. You know, games which succeed or fail based on the strength of their concept and the quality of their design, not their brand name recognition.

Like others have said, though, it all depends on what the series is and why its latest installment was bad. Was it bad because it's the last new installment was over a decade ago, the original gameplay has no place in the current market, and a different developer revived the series in unrecognizable form just because the series name is well known? Was it because the series concept has been exhausted to the point where all new installments can do is regurgitate the same ideas over and over? Or was it just that the developers were trying some new ideas which didn't work so well? Sometimes a series seemingly stuck in a rut can make a comeback, but usually you can make an educated guess whether or not the next installment of a series will be any good or not. For example, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I predict that the next Legend of Zelda game will be great, and the next Alone in the Dark game will be bad.