Viewing Thread:
"What constitutes a sequel??"

Afetr a debate about the fact that Nintendo release old franchises, but they are always brand new innovative games, it has left my poor litle head wondering about the exact definition of the word sequel.

For me it has always been simple;

Sequel - next game in a series.


But after visiting FOG several times I have been led into a new path. If Nintendo release a game, with old characters etc. coming along for the ride, it is not necesserily a sequel. Take the Gamecube Zelda for instance, apparently, due to the fact that the game has a new storyline and new cell shading graphics, the average Nintendo fan will tell you, as Nintendo have been so innovative, it does not constitute a sequel.

So where do they draw the line when it comes to games release on a sony console. Well, I'll take Starfex' comments on Final Fantasy 10 into account (I have seen others using this as an example of PS2 sequel also, but I'm picking on him particularly). The game has an old name, final Fantasy, by Square is a well established gaming Franchise. When it comes to the Playstation 2's final Fantasy 10, Nintendo fams will have you believe that it is merely another sequel on the sequelstation, despite it having, new characters and a new stroyline, making it an entirly new game, just with an old franchise stuck in the title.

This is where I begin to get confused, before coming to the FOG, I would have expected Final Fantasy 10, to be classed a sequel, and it usually is, but if I apply the Nintendo fan's logic, I get to a point where I feel that it doesn't constitute a sequel "because it is a brand new game". Now I would have felt that all sequels are brand new games, anyone who has played Tomb Raider 1 and 2 will tell you that they are different games. So I have now been led to apply a new definiton to the word "sequel", and for the faint hearted and simple minded, you may want to give it a miss;

Sequel - in nintendo fan talking about nintendo context - the next game in a series, which doesn't include any game released on a nintendo console if the game has old characters, but a new stroyline or a new graphical technique.

- in nintendo fan talking about sony context - any game which has the same words as any game before it in the title, regardless of a new storyline, characters or graphical techniques.

- in Sony fan context - why do nintendo fans always go on about sequels?

- in Bonus context - the next game in a series or franchise.

Thanks for reading.

Alright, a sequel, but in a different form to the "Clone sequel" that the Playstation is plagued with.

The closest thing to a clone sequel on the Gamecube is Smash Brothers Melee, but even then, there's been a 2 year gap since the orginal, it's stuffed full with new ideas and it's still only the second of it's kind.

Basically, it's an MGS2 style of sequel rather than the GT3/Tombraider "Clone Style"

Do you see?

Story = Save the princess.

Gameplay = Platformer

Mario sequel.

No! Every Mario game is a sequel! Sequel I tell youz, SSEEEEQQQUUUUEEELLLL!!!!

Ant: Stubborn as hell.

Bonus wrote:
> It's still a sequel, regardless of it changing system, or improving
> because the hardware allows a 3D environment or any other little
> tweaks, all the mario games, one after the other are sequels, just
> because the stopped numbering them 1,2,3 etc. doesn't make them any
> less a sequel.

Whether they improve on the genre or are totally
> innovative has absolutely nothing to do with it. A game which
> continues a series or franchise is a sequel.

No, but as you clearly don't understand, I'm going to give up explaining.

Mario World and Mario 64 are completely different in Graphics, Gameplay, Story, Setting and Style.

If the name was changed and was swapped for a character in blue then you wouldn't be able to compare them.

Ant wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
You can't exactly call Mario 64 a sequel to a
> 16bit
> Snes game.

I can call it what I want to. Mario 64 is
> a sequel to the 16bit Snes game. There we go, I just said it. :D :D
>

Only jokin', it's not a sequel, it's an update. ;)
A damn good one too

It's still a sequel, regardless of it changing system, or improving because the hardware allows a 3D environment or any other little tweaks, all the mario games, one after the other are sequels, just because the stopped numbering them 1,2,3 etc. doesn't make them any less a sequel.

Whether they improve on the genre or are totally innovative has absolutely nothing to do with it. A game which continues a series or franchise is a sequel.

I'll quickly settle this sequels business once and for all.

Some sequels are welcome follow ups to the original game.

(eg MGS2 or Majoras Mask)

Other's are the same game with just minor tweaks (Fifa!!)

Most come in between (like Tombraider and Ridge Racer) where a new one comes out every year, and although they're still decent games, they get a bit tiresome after 5 or so games.

I think that you'll find with the best sequels (eg Perfect Dark and most of the Gamecube ones) that there's atleast a 2 year gap between the original game and the sequel rather than a update every year.

And if anyone calls GC Mario a sequel to Mario 64, then Metal Gear Solid on the Playstation is clearly a sequel to the 8bit Metal Gear.

Now surely you can tell the difference between that sort of sequel and the sort where nothing changes except the levels.

Strafex wrote:
You can't exactly call Mario 64 a sequel to a 16bit
> Snes game.

I can call it what I want to. Mario 64 is a sequel to the 16bit Snes game. There we go, I just said it. :D :D

Only jokin', it's not a sequel, it's an update. ;)

I know that Mario Advance is the biggest rip off in history.

For 30 pounds you can get a Snes with all five 2D Mario games.

To get just 4 of them on the Gameboy Advance, you need to get Mario 1 for 20 (gameboy Colour), the 3 Mario advances (35 pounds each)

Your talking 125 pounds. Needless to say i'll get a Snes instead.

As for the Playstion 2's reputation as a sequel machine, see my stereotypes topic.
And while yes, Mario went up in sequels for the first 5 games or so (back in the days when people used to make sequels a proper improvement over the original rather than just a lick of paint with new levels), after Mario world that stopped.


You can't exactly call Mario 64 a sequel to a 16bit Snes game.

Also, another little complaint here about Nintendo...

They put absolutely no effort into Super Mario Advance at all! They just got Mario Bros and Super Mario Bros 2, stuck them in the same game, and said, "Ah, there we go."

*Ant shakes head in disappointment*