How many installments is too much for a game? - COMING SOON, the 30TH COMPLETE DEFINITIVE PLATINUM VERSION OF "insert game here"

[Thiletonomics]

With game franchises getting drawn out longer and longer, and having more installments than you can count with two hands worth of fingers, how many titles in a video game series, gets to the point that you think that it's too much?

Some examples of games having too many installments (but yet people still buy them), include:

• The obligatory annual sports games from EA and 2K (Madden, NBA, FIFA, WWE)
• Pokémon, and they also double-dip by continuing to use paired versions of games
• Fire Emblem, since Engage is now the 17th installment of that franchise (and I still wonder how they manage to keep making those games, given that I don't see how people were interested enough in the older games, to keep them going)
• Gran Turismo, since they also sold tech demo "Prologue" versions (Gran Turismo 4 and 5 both had Prologue versions, that people actually bought)
• Would World of Warcraft's expansions count for this question, or no?
• Dynasty Warriors, since they also have the Empires side-games, and various other musou genre spinoffs, i.e. Samurai Warriors

As for me, I'm not sure if I have a fixed number of when a game has too many installments, but it's probably when a game starts cutting features that were in previous games, i.e. the Dexit situation in Pokémon Sword and Shield, and their subsequent games from now on, that I draw the line of being enough.

 

[Pissmaster]

It's a broad question, but I'd say it really depends on the game. The allure of yearly sports games is updated rosters, to let you simulate and play as the athletes in this year's season of sport, so they're parallel to numbered yearly sporting events. There have been 38 Wrestlemanias and 57 Super Bowls, which aren't really parallel with there being, say, 25 James Bond films. Bond films each tell an individual story that can be enjoyed on their own, whereas the Super Bowl is a sporting event. Video games that are modular in nature are more akin to numbered sporting events than individual films. Each one is essentially the same, but with a different collection of something.

The game series with the biggest number on the end that I know of is beatmania IIDX, which is currently on its 30th title:

except that's the 31st title in the series due to the first sequel, beatmania IIDX Substream, which was followed by 2nd Style. Beatmania IIDX is also a sequel series of the original beatmania, which had... something like a dozen entries, I dunno. The point is, there are a ton of these games, but they're all the same, as it's a yearly franchise, and the tiny subset of people who care are just happy to have an enormous collection of songs.

On the other hand, if you're more into narrative-driven games, a franchise like Yakuza is downright daunting. There are about 14 games in that franchise if you count spinoffs and the Judgment duology, and each one is pretty big, with a long, dramatic story and unique characters to each game. But, since they're such dense games, it's easy to burn out after just two or three of them. You're intended to really go through the entire story and enjoy the game for all it has to offer, whereas modular music and sports games are more like toyboxes. You're never intended to explore each and every athlete in this year's FIFA, and you're never intended to play through every song on every difficulty in this year's Beatmania.

Pokemon's kind of a unique case. It's a children's franchise that happens to appeal to adults much like a comfort food. You know exactly what you're getting: something safe and inoffensive that promises a lighthearted colorful journey full of collecting monsters and exploring caves and villages. If you grew up with the first few generations of Pokemon, you're at an age where you might have a kid now, and you can rest assured that they'll get essentially an updated version of what you enjoyed when you were little. It's like how Sesame Street has 53 seasons with 4,633 episodes. Why so many? Is that too many? Don't they just teach children the same thing every time? Well, it's designed to grow with the times, and teach kids about the world they're coming into. You and me may love seeing a Sesame Street sketch about computers where they showcase an Apple II:

But that's not useful for a kid born in 2020, who will probably be using an iPad more than anything during their formative years. Thus, the show continues to be developed, much like Pokemon now being in HD, with a whole new class of monsters kids of today can feel like they can call their own.

As for narrative-driven games, I'd say they're good for about five entries before things really start running together. After that, there's nothing they can really do to surprise you without the series reinventing itself, as there's only so much you can feasibly do with the exact same formula.

 

[Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus]

When the magic is gone. I'd play classic Zelda games probably forever, partly because there's nothing really else like them, but everything after Wind Waker is meh and BotW I wouldn't even call Zelda anymore. Usually every franchise has some core concept/feedback loop to it and once it deviates to far from that it loses the magic, similar to a band going for a "new sound". With Zelda I liked the world building and temples/adventuring that were built around your progressive accomplishments. The Elder Scrolls are another one, I think they peaked with Morrowind and the world building and just sheer amount of options available to the player. They dialed that back in Oblivion and then really dialed it back in Skyrim. The magic is gone and it's hard to see either as members of the same franchises that I once enjoyed in anything but name only.

 

[Calandrino]

6

 

[Shamefur Dispray]

I think most games are better off as one and done, but if there has to be a series I'd Say three is the magic number unless each subsequent game was very different from the one that came before it. In a perfect world I'd say make as many as the developer has passion for, but in a realistic world too many sequels dilute the good will.

 

[Lerias]

It depends on if the quality and charm of the games continue as the series goes on imho. Prime example of this is Touhou - there are 18 main story games in this franchise, the first installment dating way back to 1997. I'm indifferent to Touhou myself but I can tell that people still anticipate new Touhou games from Zun.

Trackmania also has 11 main installments, the number can be raised to 14 if the TrackMania² environments can be considered separate games, and 19 if we include literally everything branded "Trackmania". Despite having many installments over the years the old games are still an instant classic, the new ones not so much due to Ubisoft goyslop being involved, but still fun if you can pick it up and play properly. Also has a very chill and non-toxic community despite the extremely competitive nature of the game, controversies and questionable Ubisoft decisions however happen from time to time but it's not in a degree that I would consider bad.

My verdict is that any number of installments is okay if it continues being good. The EA Sports games, Gran Turismo, and Forza Motorsport are not prime examples of this however.

 

[Croaking Spider]

Like others have said, it's a matter of how entertaining the game itself is and what the franchise offers the fanbase. The Super Robot Wars franchise has 74 games in it, with the first being released in 1991 on the Gameboy and has had releases on everything from Wonderswan to Steam.

It's strategy RPG that plays along the lines of Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics, but the main draw is the theme. The SRW games are a mecha fan's wet dream, featuring a cast of old super robot characters, Gundam in just about it's entirety, and guest appearances of pilots and machines from anime like Cowboy Bebop, Zoids, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Gurren Lagann.

The gameplay itself isn't anything extraordinary, but the attack animations are always quality mecha fanservice and it's cool to see crossovers from other familiar series. Unfortunately the series doesn't get as much love in the west due to complications in licensing.

 

[Judge Dredd]

OP, you mention Gran Turismo, but I think Forza has it way worse. 13 games, and the series hasn't been around as long as GT.

If you're counting DLC, then Train Simulator takes the piss with 695 DLC packs according to Steam. The Sims games are also insane when it comes to DLC.

I think JRPGs also deserve a mention. Be it Altier, Mystery Dungeon, Disgeia, or Etrian Odyssey. These are games that have 100+ hour playthroughs, but they seem to release new ones every year or two. Not counting spin offs and other games. Like @Pissmaster said about Yakuza, I don't see how people have the time to play through them all unless they play nothing else, and then I wonder how they avoid burnout.

 

[BananaSplit²]

Depends of the franchise as it's been pointed out, sequel installments are meant to introduce new things and improve mechanics, although it's not uncommon either for a new installment to (completely) miss out the mark.

Earth Defense Force is a good example of franchise that started as an experimental joke project on the PS2 but improved its simple formula with new classes, enemies, weapons and other QoL features. You start as the basic soldier (Ranger) in EDF1, with Pale Wing (female flying unit) in the sequel. Then EDF4 (and its PS4/PC/Switch remake, 4.1) introduces two new classes: Air Raider that can request vehicles and air bombardments, and Fencer who is a heavy weapons guy. EDF 5 & 6 retains the same four classes but they get various new stuff and improvements.

It goes to the point a class like Fencer, for example, completely plays and feels different between 4.1 and 5/6.
In 4.1, you had to sacrifice a weapon slot with a javelin shoulder catapult (that is useless to kill enemies with) in order to dash cancel as he's otherwise quite slow.
In 5, you can actually go fast while raining death upon giant ayys thanks to the new armor suit cores (up to two can be equipped) that give extra boosts/dashes. Shield and anti-recoil cores also make certain weapons more viable.

I think JRPGs also deserve a mention. Be it Atelier, Mystery Dungeon, Disgaea, or Etrian Odyssey. These are games that have 100+ hour playthroughs, but they seem to release new ones every year or two. Not counting spin offs and other games. Like @Pissmaster said about Yakuza, I don't see how people have the time to play through them all unless they play nothing else, and then I wonder how they avoid burnout.

Diversifying the game backlog with different genres and titles is how I personally proceed to prevent burnouts.
I've played Fire Emblem Engage and the Switch port of EDF4.1 this year so far, and I'm currently doing Metroid Prime Remastered before fully getting into Fire Emblem Three Houses.

However there are entries that I definitively avoid, such as Disgaea 6 & 7 or any Atelier Ryza game. I wouldn't trust a new modern Super Robot Wars after the slog that was SRW30 either.

 

[Kheapathic]

Dynasty Warriors is something I enjoy, despite being the same game since the PS1. What I do enjoy especially, is the formula branching out into different franchises. That being said, it was well past its time back in the PS2 days.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Earth Defense Force is a good example of franchise that started as an experimental joke project on the PS2 but improved its simple formula with new classes, enemies, weapons and other QoL features. You start as the basic soldier (Ranger) in EDF1, with Pale Wing (female flying unit) in the sequel. Then EDF4 (and its PS4/PC/Switch remake, 4.1) introduces two new classes: Air Raider that can request vehicles and air bombardments, and Fencer who is a heavy weapons guy. EDF 5 & 6 retains the same four classes but they get various new stuff and improvements.

It goes to the point a class like Fencer, for example, completely plays and feels different between 4.1 and 5/6.
In 4.1, you had to sacrifice a weapon slot with a javelin shoulder catapult (that is useless to kill enemies with) in order to dash cancel as he's otherwise quite slow.
In 5, you can actually go fast while raining death upon giant ayys thanks to the new armor suit cores (up to two can be equipped) that give extra boosts/dashes. Shield and anti-recoil cores also make certain weapons more viable.

One of the things that makes EDF evergreen is that you can play it casually, going through the missions in order for the story, or you can go full autism grinding for loot and perfecting high skill gameplay like the Fencer video you posted.

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

I'd say about 2 or 3 sequels. Maybe 4 or 5 if the story is really engaging or the gameplay is just that good/memorable, but after a while, you run out of ideas on where to take the story and/or the gameplay and the series becomes stale as all hell and a blatant cashcow. Series like the God of War games, Zelda, Pokemon, CoD, Battlefield, Halo, Doom, etc. are prime examples of this.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

While there's no specific number, it is rare to see a game series stay good after the 6th main entry, a lot fall apart by 4-5 really. There's exceptions, Mario comes to mind.

 

[StacticShock]

Some examples of games having too many installments (but yet people still buy them), include:
The obligatory annual sports games from EA and 2K (Madden, NBA, FIFA, WWE)
Pokémon, and they also double-dip by continuing to use paired versions of games
Fire Emblem, since Engage is now the 17th installment of that franchise (and I still wonder how they manage to keep making those games, given that I don't see how people were interested enough in the older games, to keep them going)
Gran Turismo, since they also sold tech demo "Prologue" versions (Gran Turismo 4 and 5 both had Prologue versions, that people actually bought)
Would World of Warcraft's expansions count for this question, or no?
Dynasty Warriors, since they also have the Empires side-games, and various other musou genre spinoffs, i.e. Samurai Warriors

the few examples you bring in the table are Fire Emblem and WoW but wow is specific as the development team in it are incredibly stupid and doesn't try to change mechanics or rework shit even though they should since it's the base of a MMORPG, all the others try to change shit a bit here and there and sports based game use rosters consisting of usually alive people made of flesh and bones, you can add in a custom character though for self insert reasons of playing with those people in case you care about that.

While there's no specific number, it is rare to see a game series stay good after the 6th main entry, a lot fall apart by 4-5 really. There's exceptions, Mario comes to mind.

mario varies around things instead of insisting on the samey place every time with extra mechanics unless a certain time period passed, like super mario 3D which brought back the side scroller of ancient marios + 3D effects + team mode + griefing

Depends of the franchise as it's been pointed out, sequel installments are meant to introduce new things and improve mechanics, although it's not uncommon either for a new installment to (completely) miss out the mark.

there are many examples of games changing shit on their later installations or just doing the stupid and removing mechanics compared to older installations, deus ex infinity war is the prime example of this shit when you consider the older installation played like a RPG where your shit skills translated into you being shit at things until you got better at it by doing objective and exploring around, IW curbs the RPG aspect to be more on biomod choices because it was then focused towards consoles, System Shock 2 is another example as it went full retarded on the rpg aspect in comparison to the first where it's more action packed without the need for you to spend scrap or upgrade modules shit, instead you found better versions of your softwares by exploring around.

and then there's the X Series with X5 indev which brightens my day, only hope they balance the story with the autismo of space trucking like a mongrel because the competitors already do the stupid space trucking grind shit, they have shit stories.

 

[NoonmanR]

Feels like 3 not-spinoff games is the limit imo. There's very few games that can make it past that, and of these, most are stuff that grew with the technology, like Dragon Quest and can take years between new entries. Newer IPs are at an disadvantage in this regard, since technology has reached diminishing returns, so you can't just do "same game with better grafx" and get far.

 

[My Name is Ed]

1

 

[Muiikko]

Do you need anything past a Trilogy?

 

[ShitLurker]

Another "it depends". There are games that could honestly become level packs and as long as level design is solid, you can keep pushing them out without changing things too much. Your 2D Mario , metal slug or something like Mega Man, I'd dump in here. Here I file shortish experiences that can be consumend on small chunks. The same way I enjoy a bag of chips, I wouldn't say no to a new installation of those 3 which doesn't rock the boat.

Anything with a linked narrative tends to go to shit after the third game unless it's very well planned out or the number at the end represents certain things to expect, not a connected narrative. Here falls your Dragon Quest, your Final Fantasy, your Legend of Heroes, your Resident Evil and so on. Draque and FF don't give a shit since it's just different games that share traits and FF as strayed so far from those traits that FF just means "game were square threw all of it's budget into and chocobos". Legend of Heroes is a long as fuck running RPG series were all entries are telling a single huge story, it's book saga, the videogame, doesn't mean everything was planned from the outset, but there is a clear meta narrative above it. Then you have Resident Evil where they just started adding more insane shit atop insane shit and it all became a narrative mess.

You also have the yearly installments. Your sportsball games, pokemon and till recently asscreed. These are the worst offenders for two reasons, they never let the brand rest (3-4 years between installments make them have a lot mpre impact) and the predatory developmemt cycles mean they are undercooked, pokemon Scarlet is fucking falling to pieces due to short dev times yet you will probably get another one this year and asscreed became a meme because of it. I do understand that they keep doing it cause the sell, but someday the goose will be dry.

There's also games that reinvent themselves every X time and sometimes it works (3d Marios, Zeldas would probably fall here I guess) and others it just falls flat (most of the later entries of Mega Man games, Resident Evil again or any game that suddenly decided to go from a single player experience to a multiplayer one). The desire to not be stale can either bring great things or be an absolute shitshow. In here you can also find stuff that is new games that skinwalk as others. God of War 2018 plays NOTHING like classic GoW, it couñd have been a completely different franchise with some updates to the narrative and not skiped a beat, but an existing brand has more power. Here also falls your Star Fox Adventure.

Finally. Multiplayer focused games like fighting games or shooters. These get new entries every X time as well and I don't see an issue with it on premise, rotating characters and spicing game mechanics, adding new maps, but they certainly can go into a wrong direcction and take a very long fucking time to course correct. They are also the most guilty of predatory dlc bullshit, your season pass in shooters and so on.

Summary of this whole ramble is that if you space them out and have a disconnected narrative, you can probably drop sequels in perpetuity, or at least in theory. Do it too frequently or try to make them all cohesive and shit starts falling apart. And even then, good design has to be in there, a Mega Man game with 3 hallways and a boss will be shit even if it's a decade since the last one.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole 2]

A trilogy is a nice limit if the games are building on each other. After the third game things should be wrapped up, I'm not talking just story but also in terms of iterations on the gameplay. If it goes beyond that there should be substantial changes overall.
This might not be a great example but look at old Tomb Raider. They made a trilogy(plus one more) and then they made TR: Angel of Darkness. It's not a good game but they tried doing something different to stave off the Tomb Raider fatigue and that is commendable.

 

[NoonmanR]

Angel of Darkness' problem has more to do with the fact that they kept bum rushing the games quicker and quicker every time, and the end result wasn't even close to done. Plenty of games fall to that fate, where the company expects the thing to sell based on brand name alone, and really only a select few games can do that(sportsball, but even then you can't put out a game as broken and unfinished as that game was, just look at the large ass gap of EA basketball games).