Infinity war did it well, it's straight to the point and picks up where the last films left off but without seeing them you can still easily piece together what's going on.

It honestly depend son how well they are done. I find most sequel to be better than prequels. Sequels have to think about what came before, but don't have to worry as much as what is to come. Ideally, sequels will build upon the first movie(s)/game(s) and improve the stories, by adding more character depth and growth, while also respecting the first in the series. Prequels have a much harder time, because they have to be a lot stricter on the story and often times that leads to uninteresting characters or stories, because you will most like know what is going to happen and if the new characters aren't in the first, you will know they will most likely die. The only game I can think of that did a prequel well and in some parts better than the original is Halo Reach. Reach has better characters, level design and a more interesting story than all the other Halo games. You knowing they are all going to die would normally be bad, but in Reach's case it works very well. Star Wars has a probably with sequels, but not prequels. The sequels do not respect the older movies and do nothing to improve the story. The prequel trilogy built so much up about the galaxy and lore. It made the Empire in the OG movies all the more intimidating because you saw how easily they destroyed the Republic from the inside. Even Rogue One and Solo had more respect for the old movies. Rogue One built up even more how monstrous the Empire is and showed how desperate the Rebels were. Solo showed the life outside of the war and we finally got a glimpse at what the outer rim words were like.

But why did square have to make kh3 like final fantasy?

Sequels are bad Originals are good Prequels are art

[quote]I should be able to grasp a character’s personality in a single page of them talking, let alone an entire movie. Having to watch two different movies to get a grasp on someone’s character is just bad writing.[/quote]I'm going to have to [b][i]STRONGLY[/i][/b] disagree with you here. For a flat character this is fine. They certainly have their place and are often necessary to provide a foil in contrast to other characters' growth (which is why many villains have traditionally been two dimensional). Protagonists, however, are often three-dimensional and will acquire a significant amount of change throughout an arc. Often we'll see facets of them that were not initially apparent as their motivations are revealed and/or change. This also makes them more relatable as they discover weaknesses along with their strengths. Sometimes this can be accomplished in one book or film. Sometimes it takes several. Just look at the success of [i]Game of Thrones[/i]. Look at how much Sansa has changed over the series. If you watched her in a scene in season 1 you might thing she's just some spoiled little princess who loves flowers and pretty dresses and eating bonbons by the sea. If you watched a scene in season 3 you might think she was little more than a weak little girl who just sits around and cries "oh woe is me". If you saw her in season 5 you might think she was just some quiet puppet. In season 7 you might think she was a cold and stern leader who had been groomed to be queen. Jaime has also undergone some drastic changes. That kind of character couldn't have occurred in one film or even one season and still do justice to the character. It'd be too rushed. To be fair though, multiple seasons was always part of the plan, so you could argue it's all just one, long, drawn out arc and watching one episode here or there is equivalent to watching fifteen minutes of a movie, stepping out, and coming back half an hour later. But then take the marvel films. Look at how Tony Stark has developed over the years. He started off as an arrogant playboy and became someone who has decided to use his means for the greater good (albeit still arrogantly). Then in the second movie he comes face to face with the fact that he is no longer top dog. Now he has doubt. This in [i]Avengers[/i] he is faced with his own mortality. This greatly damages his psyche (and he even develops PTSD). Then in his third movie he must face that fact but also comes to realize that he is not alone. He might be the only one with a super suit, but there are still ways other support him. He becomes determined to create a better world for them. In [i]Age of Ultron[/i] he is consumed by this. In his desperation he makes dangerous decisions despite his best intentions. In [i]Civil War[/i] he must face the consequences of his actions. He comes to the conclusion that he can no longer bear the responsibility of his power and goes so far as to drive away his comrades in an effort to rid himself of it. In the end he realizes he has gone to far only to lose himself once again when he cannot see past his own emotions. (In [i]Spiderman Homecoming[/i] he's largely a flat character who has no growth but is only there to facilitate the development of Peter Parker) In Infinity wars he has come to accept himself as both Tony Stark and Iron Man. He is in a much better place both mentally and emotionally... and then Peter Parker doesn't feel so good... Basically, my point is this. You could look at each Iron Man movie individually and get the "I'm a cock-sure maverick" aspect of his personality at pretty much any point but to really get the whole of Tony Stark you need to see all the movies (as your friend said). But that's not a marketing ploy (well, not [b][i]just[/i][/b] a marketing ploy), that's how we get attached to characters. We see them rise, we see them fall, we see them get back up again. That was one of the biggest issues people had with [i]The Last Jedi[/i]. It wasn't that Luke was a broken old man who denounced the force, it was the fact that it didn't tie in with what we knew of Luke. It's realistic, people change, but it wasn't not good writing (at least not in my and many people's opinion). Mark Hamill said that while he was filming he had a bit of head canon to explain how Luke got to be where he was mentally.[quote]I wrote lots and lots of scenarios. I made notes that he fell in love with a woman who was a widow and had this young child. He left the Jedi to raise this young child and marry this woman, and the child got hold of a lightsaber and accidentally killed himself. It’s nothing to do with the story, but when I think about gun violence and you read these tragic stories of kids getting hold of their parents’ guns and killing a sibling or themselves, I mean, I had to go to really dark places to get where Luke needed to be for this story.[/quote]Had something like that been made into a film, investing us in why Luke went from the hero who wouldn't give up on Vader to the guy who tried to murder his nephew because he "had a feeling", I don't think people would complain. And that to me, would not be an example of bad writing. There's nothing wrong with writing a story, wrapping it up nicely and saying "and they all lived happily ever after." But life doesn't work that way. One chapter ends and another begins. People and situations change over time. Having the same happen to characters over multiple books, movies, games, etc.... that's not bad writing. That's exploring/developing a character deeper. If a story picks up after a previous one left off and feels that its time for the characters to be taken in a new direction, I'm perfectly cool with that. It helps you feel closer to the characters. How many movies has James Bond been in? They're all pretty stand alone (a few loose connections here or there). James, however, hasn't changed much throughout. He's had his moments (such as considering settling down in [i]Casino Royale[/i]) but ultimately ends up in a place where you could just skip any one film and be fine. Shrek on the other hand only had four movies (although, I think we can agree to ignore the fourth). Shrek changed quiet a bit between the crotchety "get out of muh swamp" guy he was in the first film to the insecure guy he was in the second to the fear of fatherhood in the third. None of the films required a follow up. However, you really should watch the previous films to understand the later ones. So, which is better written? Bond or Shrek? Or let me put that another way: Which character is written in such a way that people more likely to be invested in?

I don’t like Kingdom Hearts period. It’s honestly kinda cringy. Basically it’s Disney with an edgy twist. I can’t take a cartoon duck, mouse, and dog-thing very seriously.

As annoying an answer as this is... It depends. For reference, I consider a TV series a standalone thing, and then subsequent series are its "sequels," so to speak. And in that case, it's alright to require the viewing of prior series to understand what's going on, as lonh as the writing is good enough to pull it off. But I also think it's better that a story can stand alone. The Dark Knight is widely regarded as one of the best films of all time, and yet we all seem to forget it was a sequel. The reason we forget? It's great [b]on its own merits[/b]. I believe that writing your ending to basically come down to "But wait, there's more! As long as you pay for my next project, anyway." Is just bad writing. Having a sequel? Great. Using the same characters? Great. Referencing the original story? Great. But no piece of art should outright require an additional purchase to understand, whether it's the first, second or anything else. All that said... it can still be alright. But mostly just within the TV series medium, I think.

Halo two is hands down the best squeal for any video game

Yes.

You can watch Terminator 2 without watching the first one. The first Terminator is a great film don't get me wrong, but Terminator 2 had a perfect intro that briefly explains the plot and shows you what is happening. Watching the first Terminator after watching T2 is just a bonus.

See, it's this mindset that actually ruins stories for me, if I can't start at the beginning for whatever reason, I'm not going to enjoy my time with the subsequent stories, no matter how separated they are.

I think in most cases, a good game needs to be able to survive as it's own entity even if it is a sequel/prequel to something since it just doesn't seem right to try and lean on the success of the last game. It's alright for someone to have a deeper understanding of the series from playing past titles such as playing through the Devil May Cry games before picking up the new one, but if it's just saying "we know you will like it because Dante" then it's just a game hoping it's early work will keep it alive.

I tend to lean on the side of letting it be a stand-alone, as well as a sequel.

If it's a sequel to something then it should be relative to it's predecessor. Now i don't like when it's a sequel and it's basically the same exact story as the previous. Like hangover 2 was so bad because it was the same story and same jokes just in a different country. With something like Incredibles 2 I don't think you should have to know the original to understand what's going on. Same with Super Troopers 2. However if it's a series like let's say LotR it shouldn't make sense if you start at Two Towers. Prequels are a different matter. You shouldn't have to know about Luke Skywalker to enjoy Anakin becoming Vader. It all depends on the context and complexity of what you're watching.

It's fine either way in my opinion

Ummm.... ever played Halo Reach?