Say, old Buttercup had been a reliable race stallion through the years. He had his uses, he was always there when you needed him, and he probably made you a good amount of money at the track. But with success comes pressure, and the good times can't last forever. When your stallion starts to slow down, trip up, and stop winning as many races, you don't keep sending him in to underperform and disappoint. It's just that time to send old Buttercup to retire in that big glue factory in the sky, then saddle up a new colt. But that doesn't seem to be the developer/publisher's mentality for many of today's long-standing franchises. Instead, a successful game series is just doomed to be run into the ground, then beaten to death with a stick until money stops coming out.
All good things must end eventually--so is it best to leave on a high note, when we still hold a series like AC in high regard? Historically with games, the answer has been, no. Developers have been sticking with their known franchises for decades now; just look at how many Mega Man, Mario, and Sonic the Hedgehog games there are. It isn't really a new thing to see half a dozen (or more) games come out of a single series. It's just a shame that some of these beloved franchises never get the conclusion they deserve. They'll just fizzle out when they can't pull the money cart up the profit hill.
With so many of the last decade's blockbuster franchises coming up on 10 or more games, with no signs of slowing, it seems like having an unending game series will be an all-too-common theme. The problem is that when developers are popping iterations out so fast, players get burnt out on them even faster (Call of Duty, anyone?). And with games being so story-heavy, at what point do the plots just become utter nonsense (Kingdom Hearts being a prime example). So, the question becomes: When is the right time to end a dynasty? When the time comes, will developers give their games the send off they deserve?
