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.

Strafex wrote:
> I can see why you think that Final Fantasy 10 isn't a
> sequel.

Lets put it this way:

If it had a more original name
> (say Final Fantasy: Waldos big adventure) rather than Final Fantasy
> 10 then people wouldn't class it as a sequel.

BUT!!:

As the
> PS/PS2 is stereotyped as a sequel machine where people like to stick
> with brand name, Square make it look like a sequel in order to
> absorb the casual gamers.

So, Final Fantasy 10 might not really
> be a sequel but Square want it to be seen as a sequel so it is
> classed as a sequel?

Sooo...a sequel comes down to what name it has??

If it had been named Final Fantasy: Twonks Alert, it wouldn't have been a sequel??

And how do we know 'casual gamers' like sequels? I can sense another PS2-for-casual-gamers and GameCube-for-hardcore-gamers argument coming along...

But what gets me is, people rant over the PS2 having so many sequels. For a start, out of my collection of 8 PS2 games, 2 of those are sequels. Not many, really.

But Mario games...there are about 20-30 Mario games, right? Mario Bros, Mario Bros 2, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 2...I mean, they're all sequels, right?

The Gamecube games are comptetitively priced at the same as the PS2 ones.

As for the Gameboy Advance, yes Nintendo are ripping people off in that department.

I've said so many times:
The GBA is the handheld equivilent of the PS2 but while it has no competition like the GC and Xbox to kick it in, it won't fail.

How do you know that?? In the states, the Gamecube games are again more expensive than any other system, and anyone expecting them to be £35 here is having a laugh, the RRP on Gameboy Advance games is £35, the GC will be about £50, again.

Yeah well, Nintendo have learnt their lesson from that mistake...

If you hadn't been so niave concerning all things gloriously nintendo, then I wouldn't have hassled you, but seeing as the £60 quid per game N64 was so obviously not an attempt at making money but simply for nintendo to make great original games, I'll let you off.

*Does sarcasm work in text??*

You've not read a word I've said, have you?

You just a little trouble maker! :-D

I know exactly what you mean, that as long as a game is developed by Nintendo, then it is less likely to be a sequel than a game by another comnpany. It s less likely to be a cash in, and it will be better than any game on any other console. Quise simply your a biased Nintendo fan, stands to reason really, you and Dringo could be quite good friends.

You know perfectly well what I mean Bonus.

You're just being awkward. :-P

Final Fantasy 10 is a sequel, I have never said it isn't. But if you apply your reasoning of innovation, new storyline, new gameplay elements and one step further new characters, then Final Fantasy wouldn't be a sequel, by your rules, not mine, I'm quite happy for it to be a sequel.

I can see why you think that Final Fantasy 10 isn't a sequel.

Lets put it this way:

If it had a more original name (say Final Fantasy: Waldos big adventure) rather than Final Fantasy 10 then people wouldn't class it as a sequel.

BUT!!:

As the PS/PS2 is stereotyped as a sequel machine where people like to stick with brand name, Square make it look like a sequel in order to absorb the casual gamers.

So, Final Fantasy 10 might not really be a sequel but Square want it to be seen as a sequel so it is classed as a sequel?

Now do you see?