Hey MyIGNers! It's been a while since I last wrote a blog and in some cases, it's been a long time since I commented on other people's blogs. Much of the reason is down to school and well... time going fast. I miss writing blogs and I'm sure many people might have my detailed blogs and many people are beginning to catch up with my blogs... which makes more sense to write a new one. Add to the backlog I say! 
However in the time that I've been absent, I've began to reflect on the video game series which appeared to become more stale after the second installment or at least weren't as enjoyable as the very first games and sometimes I wonder whether the series might have been better and maintain if it's fanbase if it ended at the second game. Therefore, I have decided to add a list to some of the series which might have been better as duologies. A duology meaning only 2 games within the series. Although this by no means shows that there will only be 2 games within the franchise since usually, trilogies consider a character's journey rather than the whole franchise. Additions like games with continuing new storylines featuring within brand new duologies, trilogies, prequels, midquals or new series continuing the story as comic books or even movies could represent new series without adding a definitive third game... although that might be up to interpretation. Neither does it mean that a third game within the series would be doomed because it might have better for developers to take more time on the third installment or place it within vapourware similar to Half-Life 3.
Maybe it's just my opinion with many third installments of a franchise but when considering the third games, the final game of a character's journey isn't always up to people's expectations. After a while, the developers may take it down routes that people aren't very fond of especially if they're set on a yearly release.
So here's the list of the series which I believe might have been better as duologies, series which could have continued probably more efficiently be creating a series for a new character or simply taking more time for the third game. Although before you proceed, many of the games will have spoilers so I will warn you if you wish to skip the spoilers until you've completed the games. If you've completed the games or just don't mind spoilers, then be my guest and read away! 
We start off with...
Resistance (Spoilers)
The Sci-Fi World War style story is based on a mysterious Alien virus which ultimately results in an alternate timeline being formed with the first game depicting it's rise and the second taking place within the United States with technological improvements for the Chimera and also many more varieties of the species with beings as large as skyscrapers. So as you can imagine, it's no easy task for the main characters. Particularly for the main protagonist, Nathan Hale. Then again, when it came to the ending, it was more criticised and whilst I didn't think that the ending of Resistance 2 was awful, it wasn't really reinforced in the third game.
Resistance 3 was the first game of the franchise that I played, aside from a few scrapes with the original game during the first mission or 2 as well as the multiplayer beta set in a lovely place called Wales... before the invasion of the Alien beings of course. Although it was quite confusing when the Resistance 3 box I got was mostly written in French. Anyways, I understood the ending of Resistance 2 and whilst the beginning of the Resistance 3 wasn't amazing, the journey of Joe Capelli was fun and a great way of showing a more apocalyptic vision of the world. Until the ending which not only made the game feel like it was run short but it also applied to the franchise. It didn't seem to do the franchise justice and there were many questions that were still left unanswered... and I wasn't even fan from the series at the time of the original game's release so no doubt many hardcore fans feel more shortchanged from the ending of the series.
Maybe it was just the ending of Resistance 2 that annoyed many players and the fact that it's sequel didn't address more clarity was more concerning. What I think it comes down to though is that Resistance 3 was planned to end the franchise for good, at least on the side of Insomniac Games and I believe that this may have affected the final game as a whole. It didn't appear like the final definitive title we were looking for and on a harsh but possibly likely note is that the developers probably wanted to get the game out of the way with or at least didn't see a story with a game after Resistance 3. Particularly where Resistance 3's premise of the Chimera's return from their homeworld and a massive scale of uprising seemed out of the blue. Perhaps if there were more missions focused on how this came about and Joe Capelli's early life.
To me, Resistance 3 felt more like a standalone title and could have easily have worked as a prequel or a sequel which would lead up to the events of a more definitive final game. The final game could show Nathan Hale's secrets and the truth surrounding the Chimera because there Nathan Hale's demise didn't seem like it was fulfilling the character's potential and it wasn't great seeing him go so quick and even if he was overtaken by one of the Aliens, surely he would survive by a resurrection or something. Maybe if Resistance 3 went down more with the path of Resistance: Retribution and left Resistance 2's ending open for a new game, I don't think a third console game would have received a more mixed response from gamers. Perhaps for a future developer to take the helm. Regardless, I don't think we've seen the last of the franchise because Sony will need it in the case if they run out of exclusive shooters.
Infamous (Spoilers)
A franchise depicting superhumans known as conduits rose as one of the few open world franchises focused on superpowers and has already lead to so much advertising for it's most recent main game, Infamous: Second Son. Then again it was one of Playstation 4's only exclusives at the time. I personally have been a fan of the series ever since playing the demo of the very first game and loved every bit about the first game and you might tell that I was watching every move of Infamous 2's announcements and made me think that I didn't really mind if the sequel was a completely different story and just wanted a new Infamous game. Infamous 2 did follow Cole MacGrath's story and I did enjoy the game but it did seem like it was rushing the storyline of The Beast and there were many potential storylines for Kessler and the characters from the original game. Ultimately, I thought the arrival of The Beast by a hypothetical third game would have been the best option so in fact, I wanted Cole MacGrath to have a trilogy of his own.
Although I wasn't against the ending of Infamous 2, I did think that either way was going to stir up complete demand for a storyline down one ending or another. Yet at the same time, I thought that the evil ending would have been more appropriate because it wouldn't necessarily consider a canon ending. The good ending where Cole dies could be the ending where the story ends but the evil ending where Cole's on a rampage could signal the opposite in which the storyline never ends and could even feature multiple games similar to the Expanded Universe of Star Wars and Assassin's Creed's multiple sequels and standalone games for pretty much every era (We'll get to that one soon) and the most substantial reason would be that it wouldn't end the storyline of The Beast. I mean, it could still feature Delsin Rowe (The main character of Infamous: Second Son) as the main protagonist uncovering Cole's life and how to fight him off and it could even show Cole with his Kessler outfit to represent the notion of the ends justify the means. Yet it could show a different side to The Beast more closer to the cutsecenes of the original Infamous rather than the giant version tearing a few bits and pieces. I mean, who wouldn't want to see a new version of The Beast with volcanic powers and it would be fitting for the newer technology of the consoles. As well as other games which would focus on new characters outside of the Beast's realm.
Instead, the developers went with the good ending which wasn't a terrible decision but there wasn't any cool reason as to why the Conduits survived especially within a series that was building up a unique storyline. Therefore, it made Cole's sacrifice seem all for nothing and felt more like a comic book cliche where some of the characters were immune and survived. So I guess, now I have a few different thoughts about Infamous because now, I would prefer an Infamous game which would take longer in development if it meant providing an innovating story and just like Resistance, since Infamous: Second Son is more like a standalone title, maybe it could have worked better as a prequel so speculation about the end of Infamous 2 still continues or simply a character created by the government after the first Infamous who is sent to uncover the life of Kessler which would be cool because it could make references to many of the events throughout the series. Maybe it could explain Cole and Zeke's reunion or perhaps something like Trish being a conduit who can survive in some way after death which would make things more interesting!
To me, Infamous is still a great franchise but Infamous: Second Son makes it seem more like it's much more fun to play if you haven't played the previous games or just new to superhero fiction. In some ways, I think that the good ending had potential for a new game but it needed the right story for it. Even with the ending of the original Infamous could be considered the point at which where there could have been many other standalone games because with the evil ending, Cole would never reconcile with his friend or care about anything other than power. Therefore, the comic books couldn't take place in the same way or lead in to Infamous 2.
I guess I'm getting ahead of myself there but maybe Sucker Punch could have started a brand new franchise. I mean either way, the game would have been promoted by Sony. Plus, if they developed a new franchise, there's no reason why they couldn't develop more comic books. In a way, maybe I will buy future Infamous games if it continues but I just hope that it doesn't suffer release timings of about 2 years or less or even more concerning, the release of the Marvel movies!
Modern Warfare (Spoilers)
What was seen by many gamers as what what would be the best games ever especially during pre-release of Modern Warfare 2, many were disappointed by the time of Modern Warfare 3. Many were warning their friends not to buy the game as a result and it could be argued that it's the point that multiplatform games became more and more criticised yet common with yearly release dates. Even though Call of Duty has a bi-release with different developers, the principle of annual releases is what plagues the thoughts of gamers.
One of the biggest problems with the game was that there was little to distinguish it from the previous titles and whether you were playing single player or multiplayer, the gameplay, the storyline and replayability were all fairly similar. Aside from the additions of new modes and maps. However what I believe was the problem with the storyline was that it was didn't really emphasise the aspect of the war. Even though the franchise is pretty stereotypical with Americans as the main protagonists and the Russians still as one of the main villains of the franchise...
A war between the USA and Russia would not be swift unless it involved the use of weapons of mass destruction all at once and looking back at the previous installments, there was a lot of potential for this series because the first 2 Modern Warfare games could be seen as taking place within a Cold War style setting whereas the events of Modern Warfare 2 would kick-start something much larger. Not just World War 3 but a war that would carry on for many years affecting every single nation and the worrying problem with the current Call of Duty games is that the games are too fast-paced even for it's story so it probably wouldn't feature more hours of playing the game to represent multiple events and years pacing by.
I mean, in essence it would be the start of a brand new series withing the Call of Duty franchise which could include many additional aspects including countries becoming more politically unstable, the paths for developing economies and of course, many more perspectives rather than just the usual America good, Russia bad.
I remember there was also much talk about the game involving Ghost maybe as a prequel or maybe his survival. This made me think speak humorously that with the franchise being milked, maybe they'll develop games for every single character that we see such as... Ozone and Toad. Characters who are only seen for a few minutes... or seconds. Anyways, I was in support of the game being based on ghost because there was a lot of mystery about what would happen after the events of Modern Warfare 2. Plus it would be interesting to see the life of the character considering the comic books which could focus on his younger life and assassinations and uncovering the possibility that Sheperd was part of something darker and results in Ghost turning against the ones he fought with. So if there was to be a more definitive Modern Warfare 3 game, it might be best suited for a newer console and in a way, I didn't think that continuing the story of Soap and Price was necessary because why would Makarov all of a sudden draw attention to himself? Wouldn't he go quiet with this war as a disguise? I guess that's up to your opinion. Although with the COD franchise, in some ways many people see Modern Warfare 2 as the turning point of the franchise becoming too mainstream and lacking in innovation.
Mass Effect (Spoilers)
Mass Effect is franchise with a huge universe and that's because it's... focused on the universe just like Star Wars and Ratchet and Clank and just like Infamous, buying the Mass Effect 2 port for PS3 was a top priority for moi! My expectations couldn't be better because not only did I enjoy the whole universe, planets and species but also the choice system where the choices you made would affect a consequence and without completing a few loyalty missions, you could expect that the final mission might not go so well for your crew or even the entire failure of the mission. Just with a single unloyal member or the ship relying on last gen hardware could result in others paying the price for it. Then again, even though I have everything possible for the crew to survive, Mordin is still a victim. 
Anyways, when it came to the hyped up and hopefully promising (at the time) of Mass Effect 3, many people criticised the ending but praised the rest of the game. However, I played Mass Effect 3 with many choices with few crew members surviving, many loyalty missions completed but also some choices which affect entire races such as the Rachni and the Geth. Unfortunately, I couldn't really see anything different from mine or anyone else's storylines apart from the fact that there were some additional faces and a slightly different hairstyle. I mean I completed Jacob Taylor's loyalty mission all for nothing even though it could have had an impact with his father's role knowing more about a star system which could help fight against the Reapers. So to me, I was much more critical because the game simply disregarded every single choice and with the addition of promises by the developers, it was no wonder that Bioware have now lost some of it's customers. Therefore, it was far from the definitive final Shepard game me and many others were expecting.
Why would I prefer the Shepard series to be a duology? Well I'm not 100% for the elimination of Mass Effect 3 because it had many possibilities and I believe that a final game was needed to conclude the Shepard's story but the game just felt so rushed and just like Infamous, I don't believe the game needed to finish off the villain's story completely. I mean with the Arrival DLC, it would take countless years for the Reapers to reach the Milky Way Galaxy and even if this was just used as a distraction to reach a different Mass Relay, it was never clarified. Maybe the third game could have focused not on the Reaper invasion but on a new Reaper character which would challenge Shepard but might depict more about their history and become more sympathetic to Shepard and it would be more efficient to focus on the events of the previous games from the smallest of things rather than just throw in some new side missions which had little connection if any to the franchise previously. Therefore, failure to stop this Reaper or make the right choices could result in the Reaper invasion. Unless you defeated the Reaper and then a character in far future would have to face them off. The Reaper Invasion would obviously be something huge and take over a long period of time with countless of events happening. Something fit for the newer consoles.
Maybe this was all too much for Bioware with all the other things on their minds and I would have preferred a later release of Mass Effect 3 without all the features of Kinect and multiplayer and even the PS3 ports after ME3's release if it was to make our choices much more meaningful. Although, was this really about Shepard's journey necessarily? In a way, he was more like delaying the inevitable and maybe it could have started a Reaper Saga with a new character with Mass Effect 2's ending as the cliff hanger. I mean, it uncertain whether Mass Effect 2 would feature Shepard at all and with choices carried on, it could still have an impact with Shepard's squad mates. Perhaps maybe starting new games focused on exploration and revelations rather than the Shepard's storyline or focusing on smaller games but relevant like Assassin's Creed did with Brotherhood and Revelations... although we all know how Assassin's Creed turned out (Again, I will talk about that later).
Overall, however I would just have preferred a duology with the third installment in vapourware like Half-Life 3 and could have had a release date around 2013 just before the newer consoles were released, perhaps as one of the final PS3 and Xbox 360 games in 2015 or even something for the newer consoles. A man can dream though...
Uncharted (Spoilers)
By no means do I hate the treasure hunting franchise staring everyone's favourite Francis Drake descendant. I'm just kidding, Sully's his descendant. In fact, this was the first franchise I played on the Playstation 3 and the second reason why I wanted to jump on to the boat of the seventh generation of gaming. The most primary reason was Ratchet and Clank of course. Aside from Uncharted 3's multiplayer though, it wasn't really the best game of the series and despite all the mysteries, the easy (well easier) crushing trophy and the memories of playing the game around the time I made an IGN account, it didn't seem that similar from the previous games in terms of story and it looks like Uncharted 4: A Thief's End was the kind of tone I was looking for in the game. A definitive ending to Nathan Drake with some cool plot twists... unless Uncharted 4 will be the same the others.
Another series that would have been nice to see the third installment in vapourware but I also wouldn't have minded Nate's story ending with Uncharted 2 (Dodges arrows). You might have a burning hatred for me for that comment but let me just explain. At the time of Uncharted 2's release, I loved it! The movie like scenes were enough to make me think that I should give it 10/10 but then again, I wasn't very fond of the similar ending and the relationship between Nathan Drake and Elena Fisher reminded me of National Treasure 2. Therefore it couldn't possibly be a 10/10 if I thought there were problems with the game since throughout the series, the story has been the usual group of people inhaling or chomping on some supernatural substance and Nate saves the day before it can be exported from the area by the villains. So what if something happened in Uncharted that would hinder Nathan Drake from going on future adventures such as the death of his friends or using a device to erase him from all knowledge. That doesn't mean that the series would stop. Just perhaps in terms of Nate's chronology. When I was playing Uncharted 2, it made Nate seem like he had a past and lived through events that he doesn't really talk about so why not explore this with prequels? Maybe continue the storyline in the future with a character uncovering Nate's past just like Nate was searching for answers to Francis's history. Perhaps 500 years in the future with the character's surname as Drake?
At least with a definitive ending with the sequel and many different ways of continuing the franchise would have made it different from the other treasure hunters such as Lara Croft and Indiana Jones. I'm still hopeful for a Sully or Elena styled spin-off one day. Now the next series is something I have been hinting at throughout this blog... and perhaps you saw it coming before reading this blog. One of my favourite franchises not just for the seventh gen of gaming but also one of my fav of all time... although it's gradually being demoted in that category as the years progress. Yes! It can only be...
Assassin's Creed (Spoilers)
Based on the device of the Animus which can be used to experience the lives of our ancestors and a war shadowy war throughout time between the Assassins and Templars fighting over a whole bunch of ancient thingamagigs. Ultimately, the premise of this franchise leads up to 2012 and the apocalypse it would bring. At least that's what it used to be...
Instead, the developers have seemed to have gone a little crazy about their fame for the franchise and are now releasing games on yearly releases... and in some cases, perhaps more than one. I mean Ubisoft are probably releasing console games instead of handhelds which might explain this. Then again, there are 2 other mobile games to be released this year. However the reason why I don't really enjoy the as much franchise anymore is because the storylines and characters seem more standalone and less relevant yet at the same time, they're mostly the same! There are many ways in which I believe the franchise could have gone down different paths which could have lead to some cool plot twists and definitive ending for the characters.
The whole premise of 2012 has gone by but now it seems like Desmond's sacrifice was all for nothing (For some reason, there are a lot of similarities with Infamous in this blog) and even passed this point, the modern day story doesn't seem to have improved. Plus at the fact that it seems like they're throwing in random historical settings rather than featuring a character which could lead in to the modern day storyline. Like I said before, this is becoming more of a franchise in which mostly the newcomers will enjoy more. Even the developers have probably thought this before and they wonder why their struggling to fit in female characters for AC: Unity? Maybe I just have a bit of a dislike about Ubisoft right now but the 2012 storyline could easily have been continued with an ending in which didn't know what happens to the world and then prequels leading up to the event with new modern day characters and storylines which could clarify what happens and do the premise justice.
So the main reason why I believe that Assassin's Creed 2 should have ended the storyline (at least for a while) is so that all these problems could have been prevented. After Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, it seemed to go downhill for many and my expectations that Assassin's Creed would become the next Kingdom Hearts or Metal Gear Solid were squandered. I believe there are many ways in which the franchise could have improved and I don't think all the games are terrible but if it ended with Assassin's Creed 2, it would have been more open minded considering the ending of what could happen and whether Ezio will provide all the answers. After writing many blogs about the issue of the most recent Assassin's Creed games, I think that Brotherhood, Revelations and Assassin's Creed 3 needed a few adjustments for the series in terms of story and setting and then it could have been fine. Now it seems like the franchise is selling like hot cakes and the storyline is both starting a new series without Desmond by erasing the unanswered questions... yet continuing part of his story which might make it still difficult for newcomers.
I guess I can see why the franchise was rushed though because at the time, they needed to finish the storyline with 2012 and in real life, it was fast approaching and it probably wouldn't be as compelling if there was a game set before 2012 in the modern day without knowing what happens or Desmond's fate. Nonetheless after AC2, there was much speculation about the future and what seemed like unlimited possibilities. In a way, this was the main reason why I wanted to write this blog because the talk about AC3 would have been like the talk about Half-Life 3 or Final Fantasy Versus XIII or the numerous other games we don't know where they are.
So overall, there are many possibilities that franchises could have headed down. All would have been subject to opinion but many might have worked better for most and when considering that some of the games after the second games didn't quite match up to the hype and expectations of an ultimate end, I think it's no doubt that people call games such as Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed 2, classics.
So do you agree with my list and what games or even movie franchises would you have preferred to see as duologies?
Thanks for reading! Hope you enjoyed.