Sequels: numbered or not?

[Dagger Dias]

More often than not, when a video game is successful another entry in the series will be created to generate more attention for the product while giving the fans something familiar yet new to play. Some sequels are numbered, while others are not. Let's take a look using two legendary series as an example of numbered sequels as well as subtitled sequels.

FINAL FANTASY
1987 - Final Fantasy
1988 - Final Fantasy II (2003 worldwide in FF Origins collection)
1990 - Final Fantasy III (2006 worldwide in DS remake)
1991 - Final Fantasy IV (FF2 at first, numbering issue resolved after FF7)
1992 - Final Fantasy V (1999 worldwide in FF Anthology collection)
1994 - Final Fantasy VI (FF3 at first, numbering issue resolved after FF7)
1997 - Final Fantasy VII
1999 - Final Fantasy VIII
2000 - Final Fantasy IX
2001 - Final Fantasy X
2002 - Final Fantasy XI
2003 - Final Fantasy X-2
2006 - Final Fantasy XII
2009 - Final Fantasy XIII
2010 - Final Fantasy XIV

Here we have the classic example of a numbered sequel system. The games (other than X and X-2) are not direct sequels and thus have little to do with each other aside from their brand name and things like mascots or tribute references to other titles thrown into the games. Was this lazy on the part of Square, to simply number the sequels rather than give them subtitles to tell them apart? Sequels do not have to be numbered, they can be subtitled.

THE LEGEND OF ZELDA
1986 - The Legend of Zelda
1987 - The Adventure of Link
1991 - A Link to the Past
1993 - Link's Awakening
1998 - Ocarina of Time
2000 - Majora's Mask
2001- Oracle of Seasons & Ages
2002 - The Wind Waker
2004 - Four Swords Adventures
2004 (2005 in US) - The Minish Cap
2006 - Twilight Princess
2007 - Phantom Hourglass
2009 - Spirit Tracks
2011 - Skyward Sword????

Zelda is a different example. All of the games in the series still include "The Legend of Zelda" as part of their name, and then use a subtitle to tell them apart, other than the first game which has none. Does this create too much confusion between titles when simple numbering could suffice? The "Tales of" series is another good example here. All titles include "Tales of" in their name, but there are so many names that it may be hard for people to keep up with which is which unless they have played most of them.

So my question is this....

Is it better for sequels to be numbered or not? Why or why not? (Please pick one, do not just say "both", please.)

When it comes down to it.... I prefer numbered sequels. By the time a series gets large enough to have more than 5 titles to its name, if someone is new and wants to play them in order of release then it may be difficult to know which is which unless either they look it up or ask around. Granted sometimes the subtitled sequels route looks better too. "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" sure sounds a lot better than "The Legend of Zelda 5" and likewise "Tales of Symphonia" sounds better than "Tales of Phantasia 4" but it is much easier to organize the series and eliminate confusion on which title is which when the sequels are numbered if you ask me. Some series do both and include a number as well as a subtitle, and that is the best of both worlds, but unfortunately that is not always the case.

So....? Let's discuss this topic.

 

[Ferbian]

Despite not really being 'allowed' to say "Both", I do have to say that while I personally find it to be somewhat irrelevant as to whether the sequels are numbered or not.

However, if I had to go with one, I would say "Not". Primarily due to the fact that a game doesn't really have to be numbered in order to seem better, or seem like you're catching along the line of the game, rather than jumping in randomly like you'd consider yourself able to if you bought the game right in the middle. A lot of games can easily be jumped right into by buying the game that was released in-between the others, and you wouldn't know due to the lack of numbers. However with the differences of titles, like Zelda presents, World of Warcraft presents etc, I would go as far as to actually claim that it spices up the game a little bit, not the gameplay, but the aspect of which the title becomes more appealing to you, rather than "Oh so it's the second game in line, well I enjoyed the first one / Well I hated the first one" and choosing from experience, rather than giving the game a go due to the fact that something new might be offered due to a different name-title.

A good example of this would be the Call of Duty series. Despite some of it appealing to the "numbered" list of things, like Call of Duty Modern Warfare / Modern Warfare 2, it's pretty clear how Call of Duty also differs from the title, and offers something different with each aspect of the games sub-sequels if you will, like focusing on World War 2, to focusing on the Cold War to focusing on the modern warfare of the war in the Middle-East.

But of course Call of Duty could easily argue against how the numbered series works just fine, due to the Call of Duty / Call of Duty 2 / Call of Duty 3, which worked just as well as different expansion names. So it clearly shows how it's only a matter of taste, rather than something that has any true relevance, as I referred to in the beginning.

But really, I would have to say that I had to choose between the two, the idea of a game with a completely different subtitle would appeal to me much more. I try to look at it like this towards my most played game, World of Warcraft. Would it have looked better as World of Warcraft, World of Warcraft: 2 (Or The Burning Crusade), World of Warcraft 3 (Or Wrath of the Lich King) and World of Warcraft 4 (Cataclysm), or as it was originally released?

 

[Jeff]

When it comes to Final Fantasy I think it just comes down to tradition. They always have been doing it that way and I think fans would riot if it wasn't done that way. Same reason why they use Roman numerals, just because it is tradition. As for Zelda, same thing. They started off by not using numbers, so they continue to do it that way so people don't riot haha.

Anyways though what do I prefer...I think it all depends on if it is a sequel or not. For example, God of War 1,2 and 3. I like how they are numbered because it tells me that I HAVE to play the other two games to understand this game. However, if you don't need to play the other games, for example, Zelda, I would rather have it's own unique game because it tells you that you will get your own unique story.

Final Fantasy though...I would riot if they changed how they did it.

 

[RicoLen]

Actually I kind of like the both answer. Look at Metroid.

Metroid 1 for the NES
Metroid 2 for the GB
Metroid 3 for the SNES

The first trilogy was a lot of fun and you knew how the game was going to played; as a side scroller. IMO Metroid 3 was the best side scroller ever made. But then you got the next set of Metroid games

Metroid Prime for the NGC
Metroid Prime 2 for the NGC
Metroid Prime 3 for the Wii

Again, you knew what you were getting with this trilogy as well. It's a first person adventure game, and once again, I have to say that Metroid Prime is the BEST single player first person shooter game ever.

So then you've got the offshoots, Metroid Prime Hunters, well it's not really like Metroid Prime because the interface is so weird, and plus you're playing against other bounty hunters. Certainly not one of the numbered games.

You've got Metroid Zero Mission for the GBA, it's a remake and expansion of the original Metroid game. VERY good game all the way around, but obviously it doesn't fit with the first three.

Metroid Fusion for the GBA could arguably be considered Metroid 4, and in fact I think in some circles it IS considered Metroid 4. This is the only case where one of the Metroid games seems to fudge its naming convention a little. It certainly fits as being worthy of the name, it's a side scroller, it continues the original story, and has nothing to do with the Metroid Prime story.

Metroid Other M certainly did not fit in with the Metroid Prime games. It switched between first and third person perspective had dialogue FROM SAMUS. Never mind that the dialogue made her sound like an annoying japanese teenager rather than the badass bounty hunter we all imagined her to be. In any case, it just did not fit with either prime nor the original trilogy and it was named thusly.

So yeah, in a word, both.

 

[Cracka Jack]

I prefer my sequels numbered and subtitled, but if I had to choose just one I'd go subtitled. I like to think that the developer put the time in to think of a name that fits that specific entry in the series as opposed to just slapping on whatever number happens to be next for that one. I assume numbered sequels are preferred by publishers for the sake of brand recognition, so people expect a direct sequel to whatever game they had played before even if it's not one. Zelda's a great example of subtitling their sequels. It may be small and simple, but it gives you an idea of what to expect from the game.

 

[Sean Valjean]

It depends on the series really. With some exceptions, if it's a series with one continuous story, it would be wise to throw a number in the title to avoid confusion. God of War, Metal Gear, Xenosaga, Mass Effect all have a number to let me know that these game should be played in the proper order in order to comprehend what's going on.

Subtitles work better for series that are more episodic in nature. Games like Zelda or Ratchet & Clank can be jumped into at any point without really worrying about which to play, for the most part. Interestingly enough, the Final Fantasy games follow a strict numbered system, yet are completely unrelated to each other.

Though if I could only choose one, I'd choose numbered for the mere fact that I'm lazy. If it's a series that only uses subtitles, I'd be completely lost on where to start and would have to research the games to make sure I'm jumping in at the right point or if there is one at all. (I'm looking at you, Tales series). At least with numbers, there's no doubt on which game came first and which came last.

P.S. In case you were unsure, Dagger, Skyward Sword will release Nov. 20th

 

[Sin Jackal]

There's two ways to look at it really.

Numbered series titles are a lazy way to title your games, and an easy way to let the buyer feel relaxed with your series and know what to expect.

Naming them different things is just a way to hide the fact that you're pumping out a ton of sequals and not trying something new.


Personally, I think all the awkward names can make it really convoluted sometimes. When I see the game "GTA IV", I laugh, because it's really like GTA XI. I prefer a numbered system.

The Legend of Zelda 3: A Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda 4: Ocarina of Time
etc

I mean, what's wrong with that? Just add the number. . .we know there's been 8 console Zeldas (about to be 9), and 5 spinoffs. And a remake. *shrugs*. Just seems almost like trickery to hide the numbers. Maybe I'm just weird about this though (btw, I like the Zelda series, so not trying to bash it)

 

[Scuba 06]

Good question. I wonder what Call of Duty will be doing after Modern Warfare 3, maybe Call Of Duty 9 : Black Ops 2 or Call Of Duty 9 : Modern Warfare 4. Followed by another annual release of COD 10 : Black Ops 3 or COD 10 : MW5. The possibilities just don't end.