If you know in advance that you are going to be designing any kind of game as a series of games (a trilogy or any n-part series otherwise), what are areas you really want to focus on? If I was to design a trilogy myself, I'd figure I'd try to preserve a singular focus through all three games, tying them together. From that singular focus, each game would have its own theme, which would branch out into separate parts of the whole which help make each game's overall theme work. The "first" Star Wars trilogy is something of an example of this, albeit the fact that it is a movie first. I am also a fan of most anime storytelling in that it layers stories on top of each other, although this is getting off track somewhat. Rephrasing the big question, what is a crucial aspect to a trilogy that needs to be preserved through the course of the design? Is storyline necessarily the most important aspect?

Difficult to say it really depends on the game itself and the approach the person decides to take. Holding Halflife as an example, was a really great game that could be considered a trilogy (even if it was 1 game with 2 expansions). There was gordon freeman, the Soldier, and the Security guard each battling in different sections of Black Mesa fighting toward different goals. Though the player still has no clue as to how the "Incident" happened, or who the big players are or even WHY its happening.

If you do go with story being important then you don't want to give to much away in the first part, you should keep the players guessing, since if you reveal to much people will loose interest in the other to parts of the series. The Matrix may be an example of this, people weren't to impressed with the other two parts of the series because the Setting that was presented in the first part, "reality" being the matrix, overshadowed anything else that they presented in the other two parts. If when writing it they showed people altering reality and doing mystical/impossible stuff and instead of telling the people right off that "reality" is the matrix, they could have built up that realization, misdirecting the viewer and eventually show a scene of the real world in the final part of the trilogy, where it would have had the biggest impact.

Course, other people i'm sure would have different opinions, the matrix was a good movie, er trilogy. ;D

I think that the easiest way to do this is to think of the trilogy as one full story that is broken up into three smaller acts. Each act, or each part of the trilogy, has it's own beginning and end, but the full conflict isn't resolved until the end of the third installment.

This is mostly a matter of pacing. I recommend looking at Lord of the Rings as an example over Star Wars, Back to the Future, Matrix, or most other trilogies since the majority of these didn't intend to create their sequels - or, if sequels were kept in mind, it wasn't sure yet whether or not they would be produced and so the first story tended to have a more finite conclusion. Only after it proved to be a success were the sequels planned or approved.

Look at the endings to the first of any of the above stories, compared to the ending of Fellowship - Fellowship ended right when the really hairy part of the story was beginning. The rest of those could have ended where they were and the story wouldn't have suffered. The first installments of these trilogies contained a full story arc, from beginning to end. We weren't left out of anything. Fellowhip, on the other hand, would have failed miserably as a story if it wasn't resolved in the second and third films/books. It is part of a trilogy and cannot be seperated.

So have your large overall story kept in mind, yet let each of the three installments tell their own mini-story, and then pace them appropriately.

The first installment will probably be more focused on setting the stage, the characters, and the conflict. The second installment will intensify the conflict even further, and this will continue through to the end of the third installment where it is all finally resolved.

Hope that helps... I think I just ended up rambling...

Quote:

Original post by slippers2k Rephrasing the big question, what is a crucial aspect to a trilogy that needs to be preserved through the course of the design? Is storyline necessarily the most important aspect?

It depends what your motivation for making a trilogy as opposed to a single game is, in my opinion.

If you're making it because you want to establish a marketable franchise that could expand into other areas, then you need to concentrate on making a suitably captivating setting/concept for the games.

If you're making it because you've got a big long story to tell, and one game just ain't big enough, then that's probably going to be your crucial aspect.

One problem with developing games with the intention of making a multipart series is that the market is rather unpredictable. It's hard enough for a game to sell enough copies to justify it's own development, let alone the development of sequels, and until the first one hits the shelves there's no real way of knowing how well it will do. For this reason, it's not a bad idea to ensure that the stories stand reasonably well on their own.

Okay, but why do you want to make a trilogy? If it isn't for design reasons ("It is playable now, and I will continue making more levels and adding onto the story, but I really want to release this") then why make it a trilogy? Most trilogies in the book and movie world are released as such for space/time/cost reasons. However, if you just want to make 3 games, you should consider making one large game, and consider making sharewarelike episodes for it. Like if I see a game I want to download, I am not going to want to download a large file, complete with all the graphics, sound files, engine, and all the other code 3 times. Release it in downloadable episodes, or expansion packs, and that way I could download the game once, have all the files, and then download any additional files, like maps, extra textures, and movies, whenever you released your next episode.

Just a thought.

Well, here's a slightly different take on it. What do the three pieces of a trilogy absolutely have to have in common? Audience. You can write a trilogy which hasthe same cast of characters all the way through, or a different cast for each part. You can write a trilogy where all three parts are set in the same world, or in three different worlds. You can have an overarching set of themes that you are eploring, or a separate set for each piece. The only thing that truly makes a trilogy a trilogy is that the same audience will be playing all three pieces; they will remember playing the first one while they are playing the second one, and they will remember playing the first two while they are playing the third one.

So IMO the most important guideline when designng a trilogy is to make sure the three pieces will all please the same audience. They should have roughly the same genre and plot type - you can't make one action horror and one romantic comedy if you expect them to appeal to the same people. Every piece's plot must have a real ending, otherwise they're not semi-independant 'books', they're only 'chapters' and have no business being published separately. The three pieces should have the same types of characters and relationships between them, if not the same exact characters. And the three pieces should each deliver the same amount of new exposition - you don't want to use up all the interesting info about the world and characters in part 1 and have no surprises left for the audience in the other two parts. This is a good argument for setting each part in a different world.

So IMNSHO the ideal trilogy would be something like 3 Final Fantasy games or 3 Space Quest games - use the same game engine, make the games of the same genre and the stories of the same type, but set them in different worlds with some or all new characters.