The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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?
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?
Page:
Sequals are fine i like seeing them but not once a year like the Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and Crash bandicoot sereis more of once every 3 or 4 years (Zelda is an exception i was suffering great loss when i finished ocarina of time)
meka_dragon wrote:
> Um Dringo, Nintendo may not be releasing After Dark, WaveRace 2 etc
> until their next console, but what about Pokemon on the
> Gameboy?
Although Red and Blue was a good idea, forcing you to
> link up with someone, wasn't Yellow pretty much the same game, with
> a few extras throw in?
Now Gold and Silver might be new
> adventures, but essentially there are only 100 new pokemom, then
> they're going to release Crystal, which is a slightly enhanced
> version of Gold and Silver.
So it's not just Sony that releases
> multiple sequels on one format.
Mind you, if they're fun games
> what's the problem?
Come on Pokemon sells millions now i know yellow was just a cash in but it was made as the cartoon was a huge success and they wanted to promote the gameboy, Gold and silver is so different with the same system much like perfect dark have you played it i own it and it is a stunner.
Crystal exists as it is to implement the internet link up.
But these are all sequals but the ammount pokemon made is worth much more than the entire gaming industry in america.
But Blue, red, yellow, gold, silver, crystal is better than 1,2,3,4,5,6
> Um Dringo, Nintendo may not be releasing After Dark, WaveRace 2 etc
> until their next console, but what about Pokemon on the
> Gameboy?
Although Red and Blue was a good idea, forcing you to
> link up with someone, wasn't Yellow pretty much the same game, with
> a few extras throw in?
Now Gold and Silver might be new
> adventures, but essentially there are only 100 new pokemom, then
> they're going to release Crystal, which is a slightly enhanced
> version of Gold and Silver.
So it's not just Sony that releases
> multiple sequels on one format.
Mind you, if they're fun games
> what's the problem?
Come on Pokemon sells millions now i know yellow was just a cash in but it was made as the cartoon was a huge success and they wanted to promote the gameboy, Gold and silver is so different with the same system much like perfect dark have you played it i own it and it is a stunner.
Crystal exists as it is to implement the internet link up.
But these are all sequals but the ammount pokemon made is worth much more than the entire gaming industry in america.
But Blue, red, yellow, gold, silver, crystal is better than 1,2,3,4,5,6
PseudoSavant wrote:
> Ant wrote:
Ah, I have a good opinion to
> reply to for once!!
> {:)
>I'm glad you're pleased.
So am I.
Anyway, you're sort of right,
> I
> suppose.
You could say Zone Of The Enders is a jazzed up
> version
> of Mech Warrior, but what about the different
> storyline?? The
> different characters?? The different weapons,
> different robots,
> there would be quite a lot of new
> stuff.
'A child stumbles upon a super-powerful Mecha and proceeds
> to instruct it upon morality': Isn't that the storyline for the
> novel "The Iron Man" by Ted Hughes? And weren't the robots
> in "Zone of the Enders" inspired by anime ones, even
> designed by one of the Macross designers? As for different weapons:
> I don't see that this helps your argument any. The weapons will
> essentially do similar things (graphics-wise and conceptually) as
> weapons have done before in previous games. Just because Hideo and
> Co. gave them different names doesn't mean they aren't based off
> something else.
Are you sure that's the plot?? I heard it was about a boy who's whole race was destroyed, and this kid wants revenge. So he finds all these robots, and you control them. Something like that, anyway. Also, I don't believe I've ever read "The Iron Man". {:)
The mechs may've been inspired by anime ones, but there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. And inspired doesn't mean 'copied', if you know what I mean.
Surely it is evolution,
> though?? Yeah,
> there's different technology, and it's a lot better,
> but
> again, I would say it's an upgrade of a previous one.
This is
> where I think I have the most problems following your rationale,
> when you comment upon technology. Is the Gamecube an upgraded
> version of the N64? Honestly, I don't think it is. They just don't
> share enough in common. I mean, seriously, just look at their specs,
> the variation in controllers, etc. Usually when you upgrade
> something, you can still see the original somewhere in the
> background of the current model. When I look at the Gamecube's
> information, I sincerely can't see anything of the N64 or the SNES.
> From a technological aspect, they're not alike. Nintendo is all they
> have in common, along with the software that it'll likely bring out
> for it - such as Mario, Link, and Metroid games. More than the
> technology, it's the software that connects one system to another.
>
Yeah, the specs are a lot better, and there's new controllers, but surely it's the same stuff in the N64, but all of it's a lot better and more advanced??
I suppose not all of it is an upgrade, but some of it. Anyway, as I said, it doesn't really matter.
And Dringo makes a good point: With Sony's dependency on 3rd
> party developers, we have seen a large number of sequels on the
> PlayStation systems.
Sequels are fine, as long as they have a new plot, better graphicsand more modes, in my opinion. Like GT2 had.
I
> suppose it's all down to opinion.
> Also, I don't really care whether
> it's supposedly an upgrade
> or not. As long as it plays new games,
> it's overall a lot
> better and has new technology, then I'm all for
> it!
I know
> I love it. =)
So do I. {:)
> Ant wrote:
Ah, I have a good opinion to
> reply to for once!!
> {:)
>I'm glad you're pleased.
So am I.
Anyway, you're sort of right,
> I
> suppose.
You could say Zone Of The Enders is a jazzed up
> version
> of Mech Warrior, but what about the different
> storyline?? The
> different characters?? The different weapons,
> different robots,
> there would be quite a lot of new
> stuff.
'A child stumbles upon a super-powerful Mecha and proceeds
> to instruct it upon morality': Isn't that the storyline for the
> novel "The Iron Man" by Ted Hughes? And weren't the robots
> in "Zone of the Enders" inspired by anime ones, even
> designed by one of the Macross designers? As for different weapons:
> I don't see that this helps your argument any. The weapons will
> essentially do similar things (graphics-wise and conceptually) as
> weapons have done before in previous games. Just because Hideo and
> Co. gave them different names doesn't mean they aren't based off
> something else.
Are you sure that's the plot?? I heard it was about a boy who's whole race was destroyed, and this kid wants revenge. So he finds all these robots, and you control them. Something like that, anyway. Also, I don't believe I've ever read "The Iron Man". {:)
The mechs may've been inspired by anime ones, but there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. And inspired doesn't mean 'copied', if you know what I mean.
Surely it is evolution,
> though?? Yeah,
> there's different technology, and it's a lot better,
> but
> again, I would say it's an upgrade of a previous one.
This is
> where I think I have the most problems following your rationale,
> when you comment upon technology. Is the Gamecube an upgraded
> version of the N64? Honestly, I don't think it is. They just don't
> share enough in common. I mean, seriously, just look at their specs,
> the variation in controllers, etc. Usually when you upgrade
> something, you can still see the original somewhere in the
> background of the current model. When I look at the Gamecube's
> information, I sincerely can't see anything of the N64 or the SNES.
> From a technological aspect, they're not alike. Nintendo is all they
> have in common, along with the software that it'll likely bring out
> for it - such as Mario, Link, and Metroid games. More than the
> technology, it's the software that connects one system to another.
>
Yeah, the specs are a lot better, and there's new controllers, but surely it's the same stuff in the N64, but all of it's a lot better and more advanced??
I suppose not all of it is an upgrade, but some of it. Anyway, as I said, it doesn't really matter.
And Dringo makes a good point: With Sony's dependency on 3rd
> party developers, we have seen a large number of sequels on the
> PlayStation systems.
Sequels are fine, as long as they have a new plot, better graphicsand more modes, in my opinion. Like GT2 had.
I
> suppose it's all down to opinion.
> Also, I don't really care whether
> it's supposedly an upgrade
> or not. As long as it plays new games,
> it's overall a lot
> better and has new technology, then I'm all for
> it!
I know
> I love it. =)
So do I. {:)
Um Dringo, Nintendo may not be releasing After Dark, WaveRace 2 etc until their next console, but what about Pokemon on the Gameboy?
Although Red and Blue was a good idea, forcing you to link up with someone, wasn't Yellow pretty much the same game, with a few extras throw in?
Now Gold and Silver might be new adventures, but essentially there are only 100 new pokemom, then they're going to release Crystal, which is a slightly enhanced version of Gold and Silver.
So it's not just Sony that releases multiple sequels on one format.
Mind you, if they're fun games what's the problem?
Although Red and Blue was a good idea, forcing you to link up with someone, wasn't Yellow pretty much the same game, with a few extras throw in?
Now Gold and Silver might be new adventures, but essentially there are only 100 new pokemom, then they're going to release Crystal, which is a slightly enhanced version of Gold and Silver.
So it's not just Sony that releases multiple sequels on one format.
Mind you, if they're fun games what's the problem?
Ant wrote:
Ah, I have a good opinion to
> reply to for once!! {:)
I'm glad you're pleased.
Anyway, you're sort of right, I
> suppose.
You could say Zone Of The Enders is a jazzed up version
> of Mech Warrior, but what about the different storyline?? The
> different characters?? The different weapons, different robots,
> there would be quite a lot of new stuff.
'A child stumbles upon a super-powerful Mecha and proceeds to instruct it upon morality': Isn't that the storyline for the novel "The Iron Man" by Ted Hughes? And weren't the robots in "Zone of the Enders" inspired by anime ones, even designed by one of the Macross designers? As for different weapons: I don't see that this helps your argument any. The weapons will essentially do similar things (graphics-wise and conceptually) as weapons have done before in previous games. Just because Hideo and Co. gave them different names doesn't mean they aren't based off something else.
Surely it is evolution,
> though?? Yeah, there's different technology, and it's a lot better,
> but again, I would say it's an upgrade of a previous one.
This is where I think I have the most problems following your rationale, when you comment upon technology. Is the Gamecube an upgraded version of the N64? Honestly, I don't think it is. They just don't share enough in common. I mean, seriously, just look at their specs, the variation in controllers, etc. Usually when you upgrade something, you can still see the original somewhere in the background of the current model. When I look at the Gamecube's information, I sincerely can't see anything of the N64 or the SNES. From a technological aspect, they're not alike. Nintendo is all they have in common, along with the software that it'll likely bring out for it - such as Mario, Link, and Metroid games. More than the technology, it's the software that connects one system to another.
And Dringo makes a good point: With Sony's dependency on 3rd party developers, we have seen a large number of sequels on the PlayStation systems.
I
> suppose it's all down to opinion. Also, I don't really care whether
> it's supposedly an upgrade or not. As long as it plays new games,
> it's overall a lot better and has new technology, then I'm all for
> it!
I know I love it. =)
Ah, I have a good opinion to
> reply to for once!! {:)
I'm glad you're pleased.
Anyway, you're sort of right, I
> suppose.
You could say Zone Of The Enders is a jazzed up version
> of Mech Warrior, but what about the different storyline?? The
> different characters?? The different weapons, different robots,
> there would be quite a lot of new stuff.
'A child stumbles upon a super-powerful Mecha and proceeds to instruct it upon morality': Isn't that the storyline for the novel "The Iron Man" by Ted Hughes? And weren't the robots in "Zone of the Enders" inspired by anime ones, even designed by one of the Macross designers? As for different weapons: I don't see that this helps your argument any. The weapons will essentially do similar things (graphics-wise and conceptually) as weapons have done before in previous games. Just because Hideo and Co. gave them different names doesn't mean they aren't based off something else.
Surely it is evolution,
> though?? Yeah, there's different technology, and it's a lot better,
> but again, I would say it's an upgrade of a previous one.
This is where I think I have the most problems following your rationale, when you comment upon technology. Is the Gamecube an upgraded version of the N64? Honestly, I don't think it is. They just don't share enough in common. I mean, seriously, just look at their specs, the variation in controllers, etc. Usually when you upgrade something, you can still see the original somewhere in the background of the current model. When I look at the Gamecube's information, I sincerely can't see anything of the N64 or the SNES. From a technological aspect, they're not alike. Nintendo is all they have in common, along with the software that it'll likely bring out for it - such as Mario, Link, and Metroid games. More than the technology, it's the software that connects one system to another.
And Dringo makes a good point: With Sony's dependency on 3rd party developers, we have seen a large number of sequels on the PlayStation systems.
I
> suppose it's all down to opinion. Also, I don't really care whether
> it's supposedly an upgrade or not. As long as it plays new games,
> it's overall a lot better and has new technology, then I'm all for
> it!
I know I love it. =)
Ant wrote:
> Mario 128?? Wave Race 2?? After Dark??
Surely these are sequels??
> Then these games are also just the same games with upgraded
> specs.
You're contradicting yourself!!
Dringo
> wrote:
>Nintendo are the future
Yeah, they are. But so are
> Sony, Sega, Microsoft and Indrema. You can't just say, 'Nintendo are
> the future'.
PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like
> Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders.
No offence here but After Dark, Mario 128 and Wave race 2 are a second sequal and it has taken the release of a new console to promote a sequal many PS games have a sequal once a year come on once every 3 years maximum!
Actually after dark is meant to be a completley different type of Shoot em up, Wave race 2 will be even faster and even more realistic but racing games is a little differen't there is very little you can do to change a racing genre so that is understandable (If sony release Grand Turismo another 10 times i wont criticise it for not being origonal because it can't be that origonal.
Now expect Mario 128 to be completley different as it hasn't been announced yet appart from that demo.
Sony do have some origonal games but this is what is happening. A game comes out e.g. Tekken, Wipeout, Resident Evil, Tomb raider these games become sequals this now reduces the ammount of origonal games made. In actual fact the only new stunning PS games i have seen in the last few years are Metal gear solid and Smackdown and now there is sequals being released of these games (MGS2 and smackdown 2/3) maybe even Medal of honour wich is also become a game littered with sequals.
Timespitters and Zone of enders 2 are only a couple of years away i can garentee it.
nintendo are the future as they do release sequals but not as often as Sony or many 3rd party developers and they prefer to make a new origonal game first and then makwe a sequal.
Nintendo are the future as they know we want something new (also Sega are damn good)
> Mario 128?? Wave Race 2?? After Dark??
Surely these are sequels??
> Then these games are also just the same games with upgraded
> specs.
You're contradicting yourself!!
Dringo
> wrote:
>Nintendo are the future
Yeah, they are. But so are
> Sony, Sega, Microsoft and Indrema. You can't just say, 'Nintendo are
> the future'.
PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like
> Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders.
No offence here but After Dark, Mario 128 and Wave race 2 are a second sequal and it has taken the release of a new console to promote a sequal many PS games have a sequal once a year come on once every 3 years maximum!
Actually after dark is meant to be a completley different type of Shoot em up, Wave race 2 will be even faster and even more realistic but racing games is a little differen't there is very little you can do to change a racing genre so that is understandable (If sony release Grand Turismo another 10 times i wont criticise it for not being origonal because it can't be that origonal.
Now expect Mario 128 to be completley different as it hasn't been announced yet appart from that demo.
Sony do have some origonal games but this is what is happening. A game comes out e.g. Tekken, Wipeout, Resident Evil, Tomb raider these games become sequals this now reduces the ammount of origonal games made. In actual fact the only new stunning PS games i have seen in the last few years are Metal gear solid and Smackdown and now there is sequals being released of these games (MGS2 and smackdown 2/3) maybe even Medal of honour wich is also become a game littered with sequals.
Timespitters and Zone of enders 2 are only a couple of years away i can garentee it.
nintendo are the future as they do release sequals but not as often as Sony or many 3rd party developers and they prefer to make a new origonal game first and then makwe a sequal.
Nintendo are the future as they know we want something new (also Sega are damn good)
PseudoSavant wrote:
> Ant: "PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like
> Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders."
That depends: You
> seem to emphasize in your other posts that EVERYTHING is just
> updating something before it. Isn't "Smuggler's Run" then
> just an updated, altered version of all racing games that've come
> before? Isn't "Zone of the Enders" just a jazzed-up
> version of "MechWarrior"?
That's if we critique things
> as you do, where (for instance) the systems aren't original or
> departures from what came before. In your line of thinking, the
> Gamecube is simply the next step in the evolution from N64 back to
> the NES. In a truly objective viewpoint, all games are sequels. Just
> because they don't use the same title as another game, it doesn't
> mean they're somehow completely original; if they do use the same
> title, it doesn't mean they're the exact same as the game that came
> before. For instance, there's quite a bit of difference between the
> original Metroid and the one being made for the Cube at the moment.
> In this instance, it's supposed to be a sequel, though I think you'd
> be hard-pressed to indicate shared game mechanics.
Ah, I have a good opinion to reply to for once!! {:)
Anyway, you're sort of right, I suppose.
You could say Zone Of The Enders is a jazzed up version of Mech Warrior, but what about the different storyline?? The different characters?? The different weapons, different robots, there would be quite a lot of new stuff.
Surely it is evolution, though?? Yeah, there's different technology, and it's a lot better, but again, I would say it's an upgrade of a previous one.
I suppose it's all down to opinion. Also, I don't really care whether it's supposedly an upgrade or not. As long as it plays new games, it's overall a lot better and has new technology, then I'm all for it!
> Ant: "PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like
> Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders."
That depends: You
> seem to emphasize in your other posts that EVERYTHING is just
> updating something before it. Isn't "Smuggler's Run" then
> just an updated, altered version of all racing games that've come
> before? Isn't "Zone of the Enders" just a jazzed-up
> version of "MechWarrior"?
That's if we critique things
> as you do, where (for instance) the systems aren't original or
> departures from what came before. In your line of thinking, the
> Gamecube is simply the next step in the evolution from N64 back to
> the NES. In a truly objective viewpoint, all games are sequels. Just
> because they don't use the same title as another game, it doesn't
> mean they're somehow completely original; if they do use the same
> title, it doesn't mean they're the exact same as the game that came
> before. For instance, there's quite a bit of difference between the
> original Metroid and the one being made for the Cube at the moment.
> In this instance, it's supposed to be a sequel, though I think you'd
> be hard-pressed to indicate shared game mechanics.
Ah, I have a good opinion to reply to for once!! {:)
Anyway, you're sort of right, I suppose.
You could say Zone Of The Enders is a jazzed up version of Mech Warrior, but what about the different storyline?? The different characters?? The different weapons, different robots, there would be quite a lot of new stuff.
Surely it is evolution, though?? Yeah, there's different technology, and it's a lot better, but again, I would say it's an upgrade of a previous one.
I suppose it's all down to opinion. Also, I don't really care whether it's supposedly an upgrade or not. As long as it plays new games, it's overall a lot better and has new technology, then I'm all for it!
What's in a name?
Money. That's what.
The latest Final Fantasy games are quite dissimilar to the NES originals, but giving the games the Final Fantasy name ensures that it's bound to make a profit.
One of two things can happen with a sequel, either you get a very similar game to the original or previous game. Fans will buy it, but may eventually grow tired of the series, such as Tomb Raider.
Alternatively the fan-base that a game has can be used to your advantage, and you can try something quite different, but still have the safety net of the fan base that will buy the game even if it's terrible. I think Metroid is a good example of this. The GameCube game looks to be very different from the games that have made it popular.
So whether it's franchise V.7 or Original game 1, is quite important from a marketing point of view.
It's awfully difficult to get someone exited about a game they only know the name of. For instance, if when the N64 was first released people were saying there's this game called Banjo Kazooie to be released. You can't really get excited until you know what it's about, but when someone says there's a new Mario game, a new Zelda game, well this will excite fans of the series, and they're more likely to buy the console.
Nintendo would be foolish to release the GameCube without at least 2 games available that are sequels. This is highly likely with a Mario (or Luigi) game in development, 1080 2, WaveRace 2, Metroid, Perfect Dark2 all rumoured to be in development.
The PS2 released with Tekken and Ridge Racer games, games that helped make the PSX popular.
Was Sonic Adventure available at the Dreamcast launch? It should have been if it wasn't.
Sequels will sell a console, it's how good these are, and the quality of original games that will make or break the console.
Money. That's what.
The latest Final Fantasy games are quite dissimilar to the NES originals, but giving the games the Final Fantasy name ensures that it's bound to make a profit.
One of two things can happen with a sequel, either you get a very similar game to the original or previous game. Fans will buy it, but may eventually grow tired of the series, such as Tomb Raider.
Alternatively the fan-base that a game has can be used to your advantage, and you can try something quite different, but still have the safety net of the fan base that will buy the game even if it's terrible. I think Metroid is a good example of this. The GameCube game looks to be very different from the games that have made it popular.
So whether it's franchise V.7 or Original game 1, is quite important from a marketing point of view.
It's awfully difficult to get someone exited about a game they only know the name of. For instance, if when the N64 was first released people were saying there's this game called Banjo Kazooie to be released. You can't really get excited until you know what it's about, but when someone says there's a new Mario game, a new Zelda game, well this will excite fans of the series, and they're more likely to buy the console.
Nintendo would be foolish to release the GameCube without at least 2 games available that are sequels. This is highly likely with a Mario (or Luigi) game in development, 1080 2, WaveRace 2, Metroid, Perfect Dark2 all rumoured to be in development.
The PS2 released with Tekken and Ridge Racer games, games that helped make the PSX popular.
Was Sonic Adventure available at the Dreamcast launch? It should have been if it wasn't.
Sequels will sell a console, it's how good these are, and the quality of original games that will make or break the console.
Ant: "PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders."
That depends: You seem to emphasize in your other posts that EVERYTHING is just updating something before it. Isn't "Smuggler's Run" then just an updated, altered version of all racing games that've come before? Isn't "Zone of the Enders" just a jazzed-up version of "MechWarrior"?
That's if we critique things as you do, where (for instance) the systems aren't original or departures from what came before. In your line of thinking, the Gamecube is simply the next step in the evolution from N64 back to the NES. In a truly objective viewpoint, all games are sequels. Just because they don't use the same title as another game, it doesn't mean they're somehow completely original; if they do use the same title, it doesn't mean they're the exact same as the game that came before. For instance, there's quite a bit of difference between the original Metroid and the one being made for the Cube at the moment. In this instance, it's supposed to be a sequel, though I think you'd be hard-pressed to indicate shared game mechanics.
That depends: You seem to emphasize in your other posts that EVERYTHING is just updating something before it. Isn't "Smuggler's Run" then just an updated, altered version of all racing games that've come before? Isn't "Zone of the Enders" just a jazzed-up version of "MechWarrior"?
That's if we critique things as you do, where (for instance) the systems aren't original or departures from what came before. In your line of thinking, the Gamecube is simply the next step in the evolution from N64 back to the NES. In a truly objective viewpoint, all games are sequels. Just because they don't use the same title as another game, it doesn't mean they're somehow completely original; if they do use the same title, it doesn't mean they're the exact same as the game that came before. For instance, there's quite a bit of difference between the original Metroid and the one being made for the Cube at the moment. In this instance, it's supposed to be a sequel, though I think you'd be hard-pressed to indicate shared game mechanics.
Page: