Does the Title Make a Sequel? : What's in a Name?

[PartridgeSenpai]

Something I've been thinking about lately with all the Switch ports of Wii U games is what exactly qualifies them some as ports and some as sequels. With the amount of content added, a lot of people don't think that Splatoon 2 was really enough of an upgrade to justify the '2' label. Conversely, you have a game like Pokken DX which is extending the roster by 25% and adding in some pretty radical new game modes and ways to do multiplayer (it would seem), but yet is just being called a more definitive edition.

This isn't just a Nintendo or a modern problem either. Youkai Watch 2 uses SO much from the first game in terms of assets, with the upgrades it adds relatively minor compared to something like the jump from Pokemon RBY to GSC, can it really be called a sequel and not just an upgrade? Games like Destiny to Destiny 2, or Titanfall to Titanfall 2, where the overall gameplay is left very much like it was, if it was changed at all, are they really sequels, or just rebranding of the game that was already there with a few tweaks? Even a game like the original SMB to SMB2 (Lost Levels), with how similar they both look and play, can you really call it a sequel?

Games are in a fairly unique place here compared to books or movies, I believe, because games have mechanics. A book or a movie doesn't really have mechanics they can improve and change the same way a video game series can. There is no equivalent jump from (American) SMB2 to SMB3 in a book or movie.

The main point I'm getting to is: What's in a name? Seeing some people online faulting Destiny 2, as they faulted Titanfall 2, for not being enough of an upgrade to justify being a sequel and not just some spin-off or DLC. Can a game actually be made worse (for you or just empirically) by calming the title of successor to its predecessor and not delivering to the degree of what people expect? Is that just nonsense and a sequel is just whatever the company decides it is?

[ElkinFencer10]

Anyone who says Titanfall 2 isn't enough of an upgrade over the first game to warrant calling it a sequel have obviously never played the first game. If anything, calling the first Titanfall a full game is what's unwarranted.

[BogusMeatFactory]

While I think the topic is interesting. I do have some issues with your examples given. Correct me if I am wrong, but Pokken DX is only adding the arcade characters that were not featured in the Wii u version. Conversely, splatoon 2 adds an all new single player campaign with a story based off of the final splatfest in splatoon 1, a rhythm game, the co-op salmon run mode, completely new super moves, new maps, new weapons and weapon types, amiibo support and so much more that constitutes a 2.

Also your titanfall 2 example is another that is a bit off base. The sequel adds a compelling single player campaign that is truly enjoyable, completely new mechanics with the grappling hook and movement in general that flows in a far better way, not to mention unique multiplayer modes not seen in any game that I know of where people earn money and try to deposit in a bank to save it while avoiding enemy players.

More of the same isn't a bad thing as long as you don't milk it for eternity. A Super Mario galaxy 1 and 2 is fine, but a 5 and 6 with the same mechanics would be tedium.

[PartridgeSenpai]

While I think the topic is interesting. I do have some issues with your examples given. Correct me if I am wrong, but Pokken DX is only adding the arcade characters that were not featured in the Wii u version.

Pokken DX is adding characters that the West has never seen in any form. It's bringing the roster from 16 to 21 with 4 characters who were only ever in the Japanese arcade, and one entirely new character. It is very reminiscent of a SFII to SFII Turbo-level of leap, I will agree.

Conversely, splatoon 2 adds an all new single player campaign with a story based off of the final splatfest in splatoon 1, a rhythm game, the co-op salmon run mode, completely new super moves, new maps, new weapons and weapon types, amiibo support and so much more that constitutes a 2.

Also your titanfall 2 example is another that is a bit off base. The sequel adds a compelling single player campaign that is truly enjoyable, completely new mechanics with the grappling hook and movement in general that flows in a far better way, not to mention unique multiplayer modes not seen in any game that I know of where people earn money and try to deposit in a bank to save it while avoiding enemy players.

In these, two, given I haven't played them, I was going off of complaints that I have heard online.

For the sake of discussion, however, I do like how you've mentioned specifically content that "constitutes a 2." Where do we get the idea of what makes up that constitution? Have there been solid historical precedents established? When are things just an upgrade and when are they just a sequel, and why does it feel like we've been cheated when we believe that one is masquerading as the other?

Edit: Mind you, these aren't opinions or criticisms I level myself. I'm merely interested in discussion the rationale and possible levels of objectivity behind them. I thought it would make an interesting conversation

[Gunstar Green]

Sequels are weird, especially when you drop numbers and start using subtitles. Sometimes a number is used to denote a game that is more like the older games if it's been a long time since a particular style was used (Contra 4, Sonic 4, Double Dragon IV, gee that's a lot of fours).

Sometimes a number might denote a mainline series which was the case with Metroid's numbered games being both the traditional games and the ones that advanced the timeline (Fusion is denoted as IV in-game). That water may get a little muddied now depending on whether or not Prime 4 (OH GOD I CAN'T STOP SAYING FOUR) takes place after Fusion.

This isn't a rule by any means (look at Castlevania II) but I think a number often creates an expectation of close similarity with the parent game while a subtitle gives creators more freedom.

[BoneSnapDeez]

Even a game like the original SMB to SMB2 (Lost Levels), with how similar they both look and play, can you really call it a sequel?

There's a term for this among retro games - the "Mission-Pack Sequel" - where the graphical, sound, and core level design is fundamentally similar; it's the stages themselves that are the new element. The best example of this sort of thing that jumps to my mind is Contra and Super C; Super Mario Bros. and The Lost Levels are actually quite different. And yes, those new stages are certainly enough to gain sequel status.

Sega had a couple "sequels" that were really just revamped ports. See After Burner II and Super Thunder Blade.

[PartridgeSenpai]

Even a game like the original SMB to SMB2 (Lost Levels), with how similar they both look and play, can you really call it a sequel?

There's a term for this among retro games - the "Mission-Pack Sequel" - where the graphical, sound, and core level design is fundamentally similar; it's the stages themselves that are the new element. The best example of this sort of thing that jumps to my mind is Contra and Super C; Super Mario Bros. and The Lost Levels are actually quite different. And yes, those new stages are certainly enough to gain sequel status.

Sega had a couple "sequels" that were really just revamped ports. See After Burner II and Super Thunder Blade.

That's a very interesting point. We're kind of entering an era of that again. Releasing sequels to (primarily) multiplayer only games where one of the main draws is a dedicated single-player campaign does seem to be becoming a trend of sorts. A few new modes and weapons are thrown into the multiplayer as well, but the marketing end of a lot of them seemed (to me) to quite heavily emphasize the single-player addition. Splatoon 2, Titanfall 2, Battlefront 2. I'm not quite sure Destiny 2 counts, not knowing much about the first or second game's story or gameplay, but I know that far more emphasis was put in the 2nd one's story mode from what I've read. The only slight caviat I would put is Splatoon 2, which I don't think quite so much marketing was focused on the single-player mode so much as they were just pushing "It's Splatoon on the Switch."

Coming out of a generation where there was a significant portion of consumers questioning why games like CoD and Battlefield were getting single-player versions at all if the vast majority of consumers never touched it, it's very interesting to see this kind of backlash against multiplayer-only online games. Then again, games like PUBG and others in the survival and battle royale genres seem to be doing just fine with that focus, so perhaps it's primarily a console-focused issue?

[Exhuminator]

People expect more out of a game if its given a numerical continuation. Like Super Game 2 is expected to be significantly enhanced over Super Game. But if you give it a subtitle like Super Game: Mega Showtime, there's more ambiguity and the player doesn't know what to expect. So a subtitled "sequel" is a good way for devs to make glorified expansion packs for quick cash, or take a risk with the core gameplay to see if it's popular. In general I think people just expect more out of numerical sequels and are more lenient towards subtitled ones.

[Segata]

Splatoon 2 doesn't even use the same textures as the first game. Uses all new assets. New modes, maps, weapons, hub and more.