Dr. Zin Posted July 21, 2004 When a popular game (ex. Nukeworld) gets a sequel the sequel (ex. Nukeworld 2) is usually that game with a number added on and maybe a subtitle. Now what happens when sequels of sequels and so on get made? Is there a point where you should change the name (i.e. Nukeworld 324 = Fragfest)? If so what is this point? Or should they just keep numbering them? Or should they just stop rehashing the same damn game over and over again and make something new? 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted July 21, 2004 Ultima 7 proved that even after several sequels you can still have an amazing game, but Ultima 9 shows that once the creator of the series has left, it's time to call it a day. However, Ultima On-line's massive success suggests that spin-offs can be a good idea. 0 Share this post Link to post
deathbringer Posted July 21, 2004 Final Fantasy 7 proved that even after several sequels you can still have an amazing game, but Final Fantasy 8 shows that once the original spirit of the series has left, it's time to call it a day, However Final fantasy X-2's massive sucess shows that some idiots buy anything 0 Share this post Link to post
SYS Posted July 21, 2004 The new FF MMORPG is the biggest pile of horse dung. My friend got it for his PS2 and I laughed at him. Then again he got it just for the HD so he could play Resident Evil Online without the loading times. He managed to sell just the FF game without the HD for 10 bucks to some idiot. All the FF games I've played past 7 I've not enjoyed the least bit. As for the question of numbering: I guess it depends, if the game ahs a cult following and/or good popularity you could probably keep numbering till you hit about the 20th game. iD probably could've easily passed quake off as DooM3, or something similar if that's what they had intended from the beginning. 0 Share this post Link to post
SirTimberWolf Posted July 21, 2004 I would consider it bad practice to name a sequel diffrent from the original. Example: A shining in the darkness. Shining Force. Reason being (my logic) it alienates players from a series and creates a coohesion deficit in new players... Oh yeah.. I just played XYZ! but.. I dont get it.. oh dude.. you gotta play yxz and yzx to get the whole story... as opposed to YXZ 1 2 and 3 hrmm... I guess I'll buy/rent 1.. then if I like it I'll get the other 2. It gives the gamer a clear timeline of the games. not just 'oh.. this is this and these other games have nothing in common with them. (as is often the case, but still.) just my 2 cents. :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Sephiroth Posted July 21, 2004 well the thing about final fantasy games is... they are not realted to each other. they are not an extension of past games. and often have different systems of play. X-2 is the only one i know based on a previous game. unlike the Zelda games tombraider is an example of milking something (not just big CG tits). after 2 it was lame, 3 was alright, great graphics... but it was getting old. however i think they are up to 6 tombraider games. also the quake series quake 1 and quake 2 had nopthing to do with each other. infact i think quake 1 was originaly going to be doom 3, very very early on 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted July 21, 2004 Fallout 1 and 2 were elite, but Fallout: Tactics: POS was lacking and Fallout: POS was crap. No, I dont really have a point. 0 Share this post Link to post
SirTimberWolf Posted July 22, 2004 Danarchy said:Fallout 1 and 2 were elite, but Fallout: Tactics: POS was lacking and Fallout: POS was crap. No, I dont really have a point. Fallout 2 was the shit if only because you didnt have a real time limit lol and reno was beyond cool 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted July 22, 2004 Never. What you do is add something cool to the end of the name and start the numbers over. "Alpha, Zero, X, Legends, etc" 0 Share this post Link to post
Captain Red Posted July 22, 2004 Sephiroth said: infact i think quake 1 was originaly going to be doom 3, very very early on from what I remember it was going to be close to hexen then anything else. 0 Share this post Link to post
Mogul Posted July 22, 2004 deathbringer said:However Final fantasy X-2's massive sucess shows that some idiots buy anything ha ha! Well, I don't know if you've played it, but it's not bad at all. The only thing I would take away from it is the sheer poppiness of some of the things the girls do. but the game plays about as good (or perhaps better) as any of the other FF games. it's a winner. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zoost Posted July 22, 2004 In books and comics this seems not to be a problem. I am a big fan of the comics of http://www.tintin.com and they just name the books: tintin in africa, tintin in america, tintin, man at the moon, etc. problem solved. 0 Share this post Link to post
Mogul Posted July 22, 2004 I was just thinking about Tin Tin the other day. There used to be a cartoon of it on Nickolodean, if you remember. Heh. 0 Share this post Link to post
Captain Red Posted July 22, 2004 Dr. Zin said: Whens it time to stop? when teh money stops. 0 Share this post Link to post
destx Posted July 22, 2004 deathbringer said:Final Fantasy 7 proved that even after several sequels you can still have an amazing game, but Final Fantasy 8 shows that once the original spirit of the series has left, it's time to call it a day, However Final fantasy X-2's massive sucess shows that some idiots buy anything Hell yeah. Especially the last bit. 0 Share this post Link to post
JamesEightBitStar Posted July 24, 2004 SirTimberWolf said:I would consider it bad practice to name a sequel diffrent from the original. Example: A shining in the darkness. Shining Force. Reason being (my logic) it alienates players from a series and creates a coohesion deficit in new players... Remember also that Shining in the Darkness and Shining Force weren't even the same GENRE--Darkness was a dungeon-crawler game and Force was a strategy game--so creating the distinction by having a different name (keeping only the "Shining" part) was probably a good idea. Oh yeah.. I just played XYZ! but.. I dont get it.. oh dude.. you gotta play yxz and yzx to get the whole story... It's for that very reason I never touched the .hack games. Any games that actually REQUIRE you to know the entire story, quite frankly, suck. A good game, sequel or not, will allow you to jump in there and enjoy it even if it's your first experience with the series. After all, you don't have to play Shining in the Darkness to understand Shining Force, much the same way you can play Doom II without having ever played Doom. 0 Share this post Link to post
JamesEightBitStar Posted July 24, 2004 deathbringer said: Final Fantasy 7 proved that even after several sequels you can still have an amazing game, I think you meant "Final Fantasy 4." but Final Fantasy 8 shows that once the original spirit of the series has left, it's time to call it a day, You accidentally hit 8 instead of 7, it seems. However Final fantasy X-2's massive sucess shows that some idiots buy anything [/B] Oh, that's been known for a long time. If people only bought stuff that was good, then the Zelda series would've ended after just two or three games, Dragon Warrior VII would never have been made, and Squaresoft would've gone under a long time ago. 0 Share this post Link to post
Mogul Posted July 24, 2004 Errr FF X-2 was quite good. It has its girlie moments, but the gameplay is at-level or perhaps better than any other FF game around. I'm not kidding, either. 0 Share this post Link to post
JamesEightBitStar Posted July 25, 2004 Mogul said:Errr FF X-2 was quite good. It has its girlie moments, but the gameplay is at-level or perhaps better than any other FF game around. I'm not kidding, either. Still, there is no way FFX2 can be better than FF4, which IS the best game in the series, period. 0 Share this post Link to post
JamesEightBitStar Posted July 25, 2004 No, unlike other posters here I never make a typo. when I say 4 I really mean 3... err, 4! I mean 4!! In all seriousness, I've played most of the series, my finding is that Final Fantasy 4 IS the best game of the series from an objective standpoint, whereas the worst is Final Fantasy 2 (yea, for the Famicom, though the Playstation remake isn't any better). 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted July 25, 2004 FF4 was one of the playable ones, but it's my least favorite of those (4, 5, and 6). FF6 is definately my favorite. 0 Share this post Link to post
Grimm Posted July 25, 2004 Final Fantasy VI is the best, period, the end, cut and dry, etc., etc., etc. Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy VII are also good though. 0 Share this post Link to post
Alientank Posted July 25, 2004 Could care less how many numbers a game has provided the sequels aren't total dogshit. 0 Share this post Link to post