The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
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.
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.
Page: