Honestly, anything that gets past 3-4 games needs to end. The longest game series I've liked to date had 5 games and that was Legacy Of Kain. The first game was standalone by a small developer. The Soul Reaver games took a different angle on the series and was kind of its own trilogy. Blood Omen 2 was also its own thing, fortunately Amy Hennig managed to shoehorn the events of BO2 into Defiance without ruining the story they had crafted. When the credits rolled, I was sad. It was a long journey with characters I actually cared for and I desperately wanted more. When it was clear that no more were ever going to be made, it left me with a sense of loss, but also a good feeling that the story ended on a high note with all the loose ends resolved. When I had thought about where they could have gone with Kain, it all started to feel a little redundant. We already knew the conclusion of the story and we knew what had changed, even if we never directly saw it. [spoiler]The only enemy Kain had left by the end was the Elder God. So they could have set another game thousands of years in the future where Kain once again has to battle the many-tentacled one, but we just did that in Definace.[/spoiler] My point being is that the only way to continue the series would be to bring in another protagonist like Raziel or made a spin off like Blood Omen 2 and that didn't go over well. So I'm glad it stopped despite wanting more. Hopefully Mass Effect 4 starts out strong, I'd hate to see it play second fiddle to the originals (not enough Shepard 5/10 -IGN). I have a love hate relationship with Uncharted. I played the games simply because Amy Henning was the creative director at Naughty Dog at the time. I don't know where they're going with the 4th one, but I do hope they wrap it up like MGS4 and 5 did. I'd hate to see Sony try to milk the Uncharted IP like Microsoft has done with Halo. Though Killzone seems to be Sony's FPS attempt at Halo (which is terrible IMO), I'm glad they're working on Horizon Zero Dawn now (but I'm skeptical of that game because of how terrible the Killzone games were - pretty and arguably innovative - but terrible). Resistance at least had the decency to stop when the game started to get off the rails. Episodic games like CoD weren't a bad plan in the beginning, but it's pretty clear from MW2 on, that multiplayer is what the games were all about. From a campaign player like me, the games have left me with less and less content for my money. If they want to release and annual multiplayer game that's fine, I won't play it, but many people will. Fallout 4 gets a pass in this department since it's technically Fallout 3D 2. The first two games were far removed from Bethesda's treatment of the series. I could go with another Fallout entry a few more years down the road (if they outsourced it like New Vegas, that'd be spectacular). MMOs and persistent online games also get a pass of sorts, since they have a continuous flow of new content. Though the last WoW expansion failed to capture my attention and after 10 years, I'm seriously thinking about quitting. It's a hard decision though, as it has officially been a part of my life longer than the disaster that was my first marriage (which I also held onto for years after it had gone south). The bottom line is that a game should stop before it goes stale or becomes a parody of itself. Unless the game is awesome because of very parodic flair, like Saints Row 3 & 4. I won't lie, I want a 5th game in that series. But like Fallout, Saints Row kind of rebooted at 3, so 5 and even 6 might be acceptable. Once again, I have rambled on and on. [i]Cheers[/i]!