The entire Five Nights at Freddy's trilogy came out in six months. Compare this to series like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed, whose quality went down when they switched to a game-a-year model. Also compare series that have spread games out: Mass Effect, Bioshock, Dead Space, etc. For good measure, throw in highly-anticipated flop sequels, like the newest Duke Nukem installment.
The guy behind Five Nights at Freddy's, as well as the teams behind Call of Duty, have a strong sense of audience. Both know exactly what their audiences want, and know how to sell their product. I think people assume that Call of Duty's lack of artistic merit means that they have diminished the quality of their product, however, I honestly believe they have been doing incredibly well, the games are seldom broken, and usually offer something new enough for their audience's to want to buy them annually. I don't play them myself, but I appreciate the dedication to mediocre-excellence that they've mastered.
Assassin's Creed on the other hand, does not meet this standard. Ubisoft has been incredibly inconsistent in their quality control when it comes to their games. They do not have a strong sense of audience, but instead have big ideas with porr execution. I can buy Call of Duty every year and know exactly what I'm getting, and know that it won't be a broken game. Assassin's Creed would not give me such confidence. I can buy the game one year and be amazed, the next be disgusted.
What the other series have is artistic merit. These companies don't lend themselves to annual releases, so they are allowed to release their games when they believe they are done.
What Duke Nukem suffered is exactly what I fear Last Guardian will suffer: a disconnect. Duke Nukem was so far removed from its audience in regards to time that it completely lost its appeal. – G Anderson Lake10 years ago
