[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the real Janaka [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] amiran123 Oh no! How dares 343 introduce innovation to my Halos! Everything needs to stay exactly the same! [/quote]Chess has remained the same for over a thousand years. If someone wants to suddenly change the rules, they invent a new game, they don't try to pass it off as the real thing.[/quote]Bad analogy; you buy a chessboard and that's it, you don't need to buy a new model every few years. If we run with your chess allegory, you should still be playing Halo CE and nothing else.[/quote]If we run with my allegory we'd have a trilogy where gameplay and engine remained the same. The story would however still be able to span through its entirety. The same rules in each and every game, no reimagination or redesign, just more levels and everything that drives the story. The trilogy would last for about six to seven years (alternatively switch between two titles, Christopher Nolan style), and when it was over, the developers could either make a spiritual successor if they weren't done with the concept, or aim for something completely new if they had tired; albeit for the moment. That is the foundation for the [i]ultimate[/i] trilogy taken to its extreme. Personally I would allow for a certain level of tollerance. I'd allow its elements to be [b]refined[/b], not [b]redefined[/b]. Something along the lines of CE with dual wielding, boarding, and A.I capable of driving. In Bungies case it would be six-seven years of Halo with CE's engine and gameplay, and after that a new story with what essentially would be Halo 3's gameplay and engine. We'd Have [i]Halo 3[/i] about the same time as we did now. The developer could then focus on: telling the story in an as effective way as possible, level design, playtesting, and quality, and perhaps even quantity. Such a system would respect what already exists and seeing it through to its end, yet allow one to express whatever newfound creativity one might have gathered after a reasonable amount of time. I still return to CE once or twice every year, and will most likely continue to do so for a very long time. The same goes for masterful games such as [b]Deus Ex, Max Payne, KotOR, Mdk,[/b] and [b]Ninja Gaiden.[/b] Hell I'd even play [b]Morrowind[/b] instead of its sequels. What I wan't from a trilogy is more of the same, not something new - I'd play something new if that was the case. In the case of a sequel being just as good or better, [b]but redefined[/b], I'll still always wonder why it didn't have a title of its own. *cough* Half-Life 2 *cough*. Halo 3 and Diablo 2 are examples of the farthest away I'm comfortable with letting a game venture. Reviewers would have to learn that [i]innovation[/i] shouldn't be something one forces upon a product just because of some restless arbitrary notion, or whatever. If innovation isn't applied rightfully, it's no innovation. Allow an IP to live its own life, don't rush things. Just look at how often a series tries to go back to its roots after having failed to please with its (random number) installment; it's a freaking trend of -blams!- sake! That's how I would do it if I had the chance. It's a bit of an eccentric view on things, but it fits with my Chess allegory. Bungie--together with Microsoft--brought Mac and PC ideals to the consol industry, I plan on bringing motion picture ideals to it. I.e, how often do you hear a movie critic complain that a sequel didn't redefine and innovate its aleady praised style just for the sake of it? The story (environments, characters, plot, intrigue, cinematics, etc) is all that should change/continue, and it alone can stand for the [i]refreshment[/i]. [Edited on 11.14.2012 1:25 PM PST]