Viewing Thread:
"Numbers"

Tomb Raider 2/3, Final fantasy 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, Resident evil 0/2/3, Crash bandicoot 2/3, Mario party 2/3 and oh hell thats enougth.

I hate numbers why can't developers be more origonal. Surley it would be better to think up a name that sums up the game instead of using one that sums up one made 5 years ago.

They can also be misleading Resident Evil for example was called that as it was based in a mansion but the rest were based in the city and the police station.

The only reason I see for using numbers is so people know that it will continue a previous story or involve the same characters. But Nintendo call every Zelda game The Legend of Zelda so people know what it is and they haven't given it numbers (don't you dare throw the first couple in my face) because a new Zelda could be a completley differen't game to the last but with the same characters again misleading.

I don't mind the use of numbers if it is something that has been slightly upgraded like Megadrive 2 and Die hard Trilogy 2 (Playstation 2 in my mind is also a slight upgrade)

All companys have done it once in a while but now its time to be origonal. If majoras mask was called Zelda 64 2 would you think it involved a mask(that is if you haven't read any magazines)?

What do you think to numbers should they be used?

Music and Alcohol: The Life of An Outsider - 2008

Montage Film Reviews freelancer Ian Viggars MA (Hons) BA (Hons) has written a review of the film 'Zombie and the Ghost Train (Zombie ja Kummitusjuna)' 1991 (dir. Mika Kaurismaki ).

To read the review see
here!

(Spacewar.)

I hope not... I'm wearing deoderant... athough it has been a long day?!?!

Pong.

Didnt you just give us an example of a new idea that didnt sell...

And then a new idea that did?

The problem with making original games is that most developers are worried that the game won't take off. Look at Parappa the Rapper, a very original game (and a good game too) but it didn't sell many games because it was just too original. However, when an original game really gets popular, that is when you get piles upon piles of sequels and then it is not original. For example: Gran Turismo 1/2/3. GT 1 was really popular due to the fact that you had to actually buy cars instead of just being given them (oh yeah and the graphics and gameplay)But now, there are loads of GT clones and that just proves my point.

Wow GAMEX 4 sounds really good! I think if theyre gonna make a sequel (and they invariably will) then they ought to number it so as to not confuse, but they should definately have sub titles, else it just shows a lack of imagination!

Even something as simple as Gamex 2: Quest for the lost shoe.

It also could give some idea about in which direction the series is heading, and get the fans more excited before they even play it!

I'm not sure which side to go with on this one, are numbers good or bad? I don't think it's as clear cut as that, because (as people have mentioned) both sides have plenty of good and bad points to their names. Numbers... Well, first of all I would say that numbering for sequels can be a very bad thing. It can be misleading as to the quality of the game, the original may have been great but the sequel may well lack the quality that made the original great, thus making it a worse game. For example, Dungeon Keeper was a great game, it had originality in the form of getting to be the bad guy for once and have evil minions instead of heroic warriors (or heroes if you prefer) and the gameplay was great. However, they released Dungeon Keeper 2, now this wasn't a bad game, it still had the playability of the original but it lacked any new elements, ok there were a few more creatures and rooms (gotta love the casino) but really it was nothing special. It may be because the creator of Dungeon Keeper (Peter Molyneaux) wasn't involved in the making of Dungeon Keeper 2 but whatever the reason it was practically an expansion pack. So sometimes a sequel can be unnecessary if it adds nothing especially new. Of course, you could look at it like: If it's called GAMEX 2 then it's just a slight improvement on GAMEX whereas if it's called something like NEWGAME or GAMEX: THE NEXT GAME then it's similar to the original game but is only derived from it (unrelated story in the same world, a different type of game maybe). Of course this too could be misleading because the sequel may actually be a very different game or a continuation of the story with plenty of new features, so if you thought like that you would miss out. Another thing with numbers is that familiarity isn't always a bad thing. People don't play Final Fantasy and think "This is too similar to the last game, it's rubbish" they think "Final Fantasy # was a good game and I would enjoy playing it again but by playing Final Fantasy #+1 I get the same great gameplay and a whole new story to explore!". Originality is great but just because a game isn't especially original it doesn't mean it isn't going to be fun. Numbers then, aren't all bad and can be used for all sorts of things with good reason. They help to keep a story going by having sequels which are easily identified (And really, don't we all want to know what really happened to the hero rather than living happily ever after).
Of course, the other side of the coin is that a number is pointless... Would Star Wars 2 have been as appealing as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? I doubt it, so why don't people who are making sequels use subtitles to keep their games in order? If they are worried aboput people wondering if a game GAMEX2 or GAMEX4, they could have GAMEX: AN ADDITIONAL GAME (the third in the GAMEX series) or something along those lines.
So I don't know, is numbering games just laziness by developers or do they help us identify games which we may like because of their predecessors? Are sequels with numbers just to have a safety net or are they there to tell people that it's a continuation of the same story?
I suppose there are no clear cut definate answers, they vary from game to game (to sequel). So are numbers a bad thing? Not I every situation and are they a good thing then? Not necessarily...

True, PinkPig, but after the dismal return of Parasite Eve, I'll never give that series a go again. I mean, it's not like we don't already have enough Resident Evil-type games.

Sequels are just devices used by manufacturers to force the paying public to buy another one of their games, however good or bad it may be. Think about it...if Tomb Raider 6 was released tomorrow and it was the worst game ever, there would still be many people who would buy it, simply because of the name. This is proof that companies manage to use sequels to sell games that are usually unoriginal, and not as good as the first in the series.