What's wrong with naming sequels with numbers?

[Maxie]

In addition to all the above, it can give the false impression that these are direct sequels rather than cashgrabs which tell completely unrelated stories. For example, Neverwinter Nights 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Fallout 3, Bloodlines 2, etc aren't related to their predecessors except in that they supposedly occur in the same setting. Why market it as a sequel if it isn't a sequel? This is akin to titling all works of realistic fiction as Realistic Fiction Story #whatever.

Risen 2

 

[El Presidente]

Game 1, Game 2, Game 3, Game:Subtitle, Game 4, GAME

I hate this, but at least most of the times you can reference the first game as Game 1. Then comes the newest Mortal Kombat, titled "Mortal Kombat 1", which will now condemn the 1992 game to be forever called "Mortal-Kombat-1-and-by-one-I-mean-the-actual-first-game-from-the-nineties" whenever you wanna talk about it.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Most of your arguments is that it's financially feasible to not have a franchise with numbered sequels, but there are so many exceptions to the contrary. The most obvious one being Baldur's Gate 3. The way this game is marketed is normie-friendly, while the number of people who have played BG 1 & 2 in this day and age is few.

If numbered sequels discourage normies from buying games, BG 3 shouldn't have used the number 3. Only the name BG for the old-school prestige it brings. It would have made sense too, because it's not really a strict follow-up to BG1 & 2. How do you explain this?

 

[Maxie]

Most of your arguments is that it's financially feasible to not have a franchise with numbered sequels, but there are so many exceptions to the contrary. The most obvious one being Baldur's Gate 3. The way this game is marketed is normie-friendly, while the number of people who have played BG 1 & 2 in this day and age is few.

If numbered sequels discourage normies from buying games, BG 3 shouldn't have used the number 3. Only the name BG for the old-school prestige it brings. It would have made sense too, because it's not really a strict follow-up to BG1 & 2. How do you explain this?

I think you're severely overrating the influx of cRPG players since Baulders 1&2
They can make bank on calling the game BG3 precisely because most everyone is a nostalgia-ridden goblin

 

[ds]

After a certain point, the excessive numbering starts to look like you're creatively bankrupt. You probably still are even if you ditch them, but at least you can hide it.

A sequel looks more creatively bankrupt than a numberless "reboot" reusing the original game's name?

 

[Ash]

IIRC there was that paper mentioned here that sheeple had trouble following a franchise after the 4th number, as big numbers scare them.

which is why FF7 is the most recognizable FF game by far

That was a special case where the stars aligned right, and FF7 became a success because sheeple didn't know about FF6. Supposedly, that reasoning was the excuse why Doom 4 became Doom.

I'd argue PS1's novelty and FF suddenly releasing there instead of on Nintendo kinda turned it into a system seller naturally

FF7 was a success for a number of reasons. Firstly, at the time it was the highest budget game ever made. 80 million. Nobody had ever seen anything like it. It broke new ground. Believe me, I was alive at the time. Visually, the jump from FF6 was simply astonishing.
Second, a notable portion of that 80 mil was the marketing budget, backed by sony. Because as mentioned, this was a system seller for sure. They went in hard, fast and smart.
Lastly, it's probably still the best Final Fantasy to date. Everyone loved it. Then it became cool to hate it on dark corners of the web...because reasons. Because 6 was more obscure and almost as good, so it makes you cool & a special esoteric snowflake if you like that more while claiming 7 is trash despite them being rather similar, which further doesn't make sense. All the 90s FF are great, except 4. That's the black sheep for logical reasons.

Also numbers create an association with old games, and for some reason it repels some normies.

The amount of games that exist where you "need" to have played the prior ones first = 0

There's ones with save imports where you're missing a lot starting with a fresh party, and there's also a handful (Last Raven) where the difficulty level is way higher because the devs assumed you played the original first. I think there's also a handful of complex games where not all of them have a proper tutorial (even optional) for the same reason.

None of this is creates a strict need to play the old game, unless the player is a retard.

 

[DicLupa]

After a certain point, the excessive numbering starts to look like you're creatively bankrupt. You probably still are even if you ditch them, but at least you can hide it.

A sequel looks more creatively bankrupt than a numberless "reboot" reusing the original game's name?

Probably different degress of the same problem in terms of knee-jerk assessments. I'd say immediate numbered sequels or "trilogies" don't raise as many red flags - although the latter has become one for me, usually because it implies planning and foresight that doesn't actually exist. Even if there is, high likeliness of tripping on your dick out the gate and I'm left with a product that feels incomplete when the plan gets shitcanned (because we were saving all our great ideas and resolutions for the sequels!).

I think the way game series are often perceived (with many exceptions of course) or expected to proceed is:

Game 1 - Good ideas, some rough edges.
Game 2 - Hopefully a refinement of what people liked about 1, and minimizing/cutting out the disliked.
Game 3 - Getting a little long in the tooth and I don't know what else you can really do with this property, but I hope it's a comfortable swan song before we close the curtains.

Anything after that starts to feel uncomfortably close to Freddyson X: Fred Goes to Spacehell territory, rightly or wrongly.

Of course, perceptions change over time. Over a decade ago I wouldn't mind most attempted reboots or "reimaginings". Like, Cronenberg's "The Fly" was good, right? But lately the rate of resets have felt ridiculous, and their end-product offerings are fucking terrible and have a disturbing level of overlap in terms of their failings. And you eventually see through the trick. AssCreed Extravaganza is still basically AC10 or whatever the fuck they're at. It's just that if we're trying to put ourselves in normie shoes and give ourselves 2 seconds to react to a numbered sequel vs the subtitled one, I think people assume the latter as "fresher".

As I said though, it's all mostly a trick.

 

[JarlFrank]

The only genre that can get away with endless sequels is strategy games, as long as each new iteration refines the gameplay, adds more features, updates the engine, makes use of technological improvements, etc.

Because when the game is "Conquer the World!" then all you have to do for sequels is to add more features to empire management and improve the AI.

 

[Zlaja]

Here're some improvements:

Risen
Still Rising
Rose to the Top

Baldur's Gate
Inside Baldur's Gate
Left Baldur's Gate

Final Fantasy
Final FINAL Fantasy
Final Definitive FINAL Fantasy
Final Conclusive Definitive Final Fucking Fantasy

Gothic
Baroque
Romantic

 

[Surf Solar]

Battlefield 1942
Battlefield: Vietnam
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield 1
Battlefield V
Battlefield 2042

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

RPGCodex II

 

[Modron]

Battlefield 1942
Battlefield: Vietnam
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield 1
Battlefield V
Battlefield 2042

Where is Bad Company 1 - 2 and Hardline? And Heroes if you really want to get autistic.

 

[Surf Solar]

Battlefield 1942
Battlefield: Vietnam
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield 1
Battlefield V
Battlefield 2042

Where is Bad Company 1 - 2 and Hardline? And Heroes if you really want to get autistic.

I only tried to name the "mainline" games. There's also shit like "Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam" if you want to get pedantic

 

[Ismaul]

Creative Bankruptcy 101

Creative Bankruptcy 102 really improves on the formula, y'know.

 

[Ezekiel]

If they brought back Crazy Taxi (Rumored.) and did it right, I would not want it to be called Crazy Taxi 4, because Crazy Taxi 2 ruined the formula with gimmicks like the crazy hop and multiple customers per ride, and Crazy Taxi 3 probably is poor too. Would prefer a subtitle, to pretend those mistakes never happened.

 

[Zlaja]

If they brought back Crazy Taxi (Rumored.) and did it right, I would not want it to be called Crazy Taxi 4, because Crazy Taxi 2 ruined the formula with gimmicks like the crazy hop and multiple customers per ride, and Crazy Taxi 3 probably is poor too. Would prefer a subtitle, to pretend those mistakes never happened.

Crazier Taxi
Psycho Taxi
Batshit Insane Taxi

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Because it is ridiculous and they are aware and ashamed.

 

[Trithne]

Final Fantasy
Final FINAL Fantasy
Final Definitive FINAL Fantasy
Final Conclusive Definitive Final Fucking Fantasy

Final Fantasy Final Final v3 Use_this_one

 

[Mise]

AC1
AC2
AC: Brotherhood
AC: Revelations
AC3
AC4: Black Fag

In general numbering sequels works fine when you want to indicate that the game is a true sequel, not a spin off or just set in the same universe, i.e. Fallout 2 or 3 doesn't make much sense because they weren't true sequels, especially F3. Elder Scrolls too has numbers and they don't make any sense as there is no connection between the first and the fifth. Tons of examples like these. Of course it doesn't make sense for some sequels to have a sub title, like Age of Empires or Civilization.

 

[Whipping Post]

There's nothing wrong with it. It's a tradition that stretches back to PLATO days and keeps things nice and simple so everyone knows what the chronological order of releases is. The real problem is when devs try to fix shit that isn't broke and confuse the world by deviating from the conventional numbering format.

 

[Ezekiel]

There's nothing wrong with it. It's a tradition that stretches back to PLATO days and keeps things nice and simple so everyone knows what the chronological order of releases is. The real problem is when devs try to fix shit that isn't broke and confuse the world by deviating from the conventional numbering format.

But did Plato precede the number with a designator, like "Volume" or "Chapter," or did he randomly stick a number at the end of a title? Streets of Rage 2? Who is the two?

 

[Whipping Post]

There's nothing wrong with it. It's a tradition that stretches back to PLATO days and keeps things nice and simple so everyone knows what the chronological order of releases is. The real problem is when devs try to fix shit that isn't broke and confuse the world by deviating from the conventional numbering format.

But did Plato precede the number with a designator, like "Volume" or "Chapter," or did he randomly stick a number at the end of a title? Streets of Rage 2? Who is the two?

He liked to stick a Minor or Major on the end. Pretty short-sighted numbering system if you ask me, probably why the third installment in the Hippias series remains in development hell to this day.

 

[Zlaja]

Kingdom Hearts
Kingdom Hearts: Chain Of Memories
Kingdom Hearts 2
Kingdom Hearts Re:Coded
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep
Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance
Kingdom Hearts X (Unchained X/Union X Dark Road)
Kingdom Hearts 3
Kingdom Hearts: Melody Of Memory
Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix
Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix
Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue
Kingdom Hearts Integrum Masterpiece Cloud Version