🍑
RetroSpring ("a thing you can't stand in game design?")
Q: For whoever of the three does the most gaming: What's one thing in game design you cannot stand even if the authors are doing it very deliberately?
Artemis: When they end the story on a cliffhanger that's an obvious set-up for a sequel. It's one thing to leave some things open-ended and leave room for a sequel, but I can't stand games that end on the introduction of a new conflict. There's never a guarantee for a sequel! If the production company goes defunct (such as with Star Wars: Force Unleashed 2) or the game doesn't do well enough to warrant a sequel (such as with Golden Sun: Dark Dawn), then the story feels incomplete and it doesn't feel satisfying to play repeatedly. The worst part about it for us is that it's deliberate by design.
re: RetroSpring ("a thing you can't stand in game design?")
@artemis How do you feel about when a game does this, but the sequel is already planned and on its way out the door when the first game releases? That is, there *is* a guarantee of a sequel.
This is how Falcom likes to do things, a lot of their games are in two parts
-F
re: RetroSpring ("a thing you can't stand in game design?")
@Felthry If it's being deliberately released in multiple parts then that's fine, like with Golden Sun 1 and 2. But when it's a standalone game that's like "Hey, watch out for the sequel!" then it's frustrating because there's no guarantee of story resolution.
re: RetroSpring ("a thing you can't stand in game design?")
@artemis (our understanding is that telling a story in two parts is traditional in japan, like how putting it in three parts (a trilogy) is in the west)
-F