Where Are The Real Sequels? @ The Final Dungeon
 

The Final Dungeon has a piece titled Where Are The Real Sequels?, discussing the use modern practice of slapping a classic brand name on something completely different, such as the Lord of Ultima browser game:
More information.

It's called "cross-selling" Or sort of.

This is marketing at its purest : Create a "strong brand" (or buy it from someone you happily shut down thereafter), and use it to "bind customers". This is pure marketing, nothing else.

This is *not* a "modern" practice. I've seen it for printed games dating back almost 30 years. I've seen it on books for almost 40 years.

For instance for a time TSR slapped "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" on everything they produced even if it had absolutely nothing to do with AD&D.

Can I add Arcania: Gothic 4 to that list? :)

1983: Ultima - Escape from Mt. Drash

It's easy money, and as such the only reason - so painfully obvious to the point of making the question redundant.

The sense of taste in terms of what you do to generate revenue, when your objective is to generate revenue, was always bad. Now it's just bad within the gaming industry, and it has been for a long time.

Naturally, there has always been people there with a bad sense of taste, but it wasn't always the rule, rather the exception. That's because people with money as the (primary/only) objective used to be somewhere else, but for the past 10-15 years the gaming industry has become extremely profitable - with the right business mindset. So, it's only going to get worse in this specific way.

Lol.. I thought you were joking at first.

I had to Google that. :)

Heh, no unfortunately not. It was a stinker! :)
To save other some google-time, here is a small quote from Wiki:

"The game was originally written by one of Richard Garriott's friends, Keith Zabalaoui, in Coarsegold, California, for Sierra On-Line, Inc in 1983. Sierra, who had just successfully published Ultima II, named the game an Ultima in hopes that it would sell better. They did this without Garriott's permission - Garriott held the rights to the Ultima name - and due to the relative obscurity of the game, Garriott didn't hear about the incident until much later."

If I limit myself to …
1. "Old name"
2. New company
… I can identify three directions a such sequel can take.

Real sequel
Still Life 2, Monkey Island 5 (episodes), Gothic 3: Forsaken Gods, Eye of the beholder III, Max Payne III, Simon the Sorcerer 4 etc
The real sequels that practically take the same characters, gameplay and continue the story of the former titles. It is rare to see that sort of sequel when many years have passed between the former and the later game. This direction can usually be taken when the former games were left in a cliffhanger. When the final game had a very satisfying ending you have to ask if the sequel is actually needed. A bit off-topic but let it be known; I DO NOT WANT BALDUR'S GATE III so stop asking for it you idiots out there, someone might actually hear you!

The new Story
Arcania, Fallout: Tactics, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, the new Larry titles, Red Faction II, Silent Hill: The Room, Silent Hill 5, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
The sequels that keeps the theme of the old game and you can easily see that it is much inspired of the old ones, but often use a new location (but keeps the setting, sometimes moved ahead or back in time), a new main character, a different story. I find this an acceptable use of the name. They of course exploit the brand, but they can be done with respect to the former titles. They tend to be a bit more pushed though. Usually slapping a number in the title is a problem, which was much discussed over Fallout 3 that wasn't a sequel to F2 but a standalone game.

Fallout: Tactics is difficult to place in my 3 categories. It's actually not completely canon, it was made by another company, but it's still close enough when it comes to gameplay.

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is not really a sequel, but a standalone series that even got it's own sequel. Baldur's Gate is a city and the plot is still in Forgotten Realms, so it fits the "other story" concept.

WTF
Might & Magic, Ultima, X-Com, Far Cry 2, Alone in the Dark: New Nightmare, Alone in the Dark: Inferno, TUROK, Golden Axe: Beast Rider, Bard's Tale, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel
The truly distasteful habit that much be pointed out here, are the ones who is entirely different than the former titles. Different character, different world, sometimes completely different gameplay, different everything. Usually they are so different that reviewers tend to point this out in the first sentences of the reviews and ask why the name is used or what happened with the old characters that are nowhere to be seen.

Fallout: Brotherhood is neither a sequel, neither canon, neither follow the same gameplay as previous titles.

TUROK and Bard's Tale are cases of taking an old title, throwing everything out then keeping some basic themes from the old ones but with almost no relation whatsoever to older titles.

The most common question in the first sentences of every review for Far Cry 2 was "Where is Jack Carver" or "Gone is the tropical islands".

Alone in the Dark: New Nightmare, aka "four", is at least called "new". It's not set in the same era as former titles, the character is named Edward Carnby, but at least the title seems to point things out.

Alone in the Dark: Inferno, aka "five", did have a character named Edward Carnby. Why he is in 2010 and not the early 1900 like in earlier games, is actually explained, however, he is younger, much larger build (biker-style), use foul language, lost his moustache, was no longer an academic, and the worst part is that the universe no longer was the Cthulhu mythos but had now gone into Judeo-Christian mythos.

Let's not talk about X-Com.

The curious case of Silent Hill
Silent Hill is actually an interesting case. SH5 was actually made by a new company, but all "sequels" in SH are standalone, so it could have fit into the "true sequel" as well. However, SH4 "The Room" was originally made as a different story and was renamed "Silent Hill" later in it's production. This wasn't questioned by fans since it was very easy to make it so it fit the old series, thanks to the "each sequel is it's own story" concept of it's prequels.

You should put The new Larry titles in the WTF column. They're nothing like the original, even if they did barely keep the some of the same story and had Larry make a cameo for his nephew.

It's all about stupid mini-games now instead of adventure. Never played the latest one because of the god awful reviews it got.

I agree to skavenhorde. I heard that even Al Lowe (the creator of Larry) wasn't involved in the new games at all.

He has - by the way - a very nice site which I can recommend ! : http://www.allowe.com/

And check out his download section ! ;)

Thanks Alrik. I really miss his perverted sense of humor.:D

I had no idea he did The Black Cauldron. I LOVED that game when I was a kid. I even remember parts of that game to this day. Dude, thanks a lot for that site and bringing back a ton of memories.

It runs under DOSBOX. I've tried it a few years ago.

Right now I've ordered The Book Of Three in a book shop. ;)

No mentioned titles was made by the same developer. But some games barely have a glimpse of anything remotely reminding you of previous titles of the same name, which is so obvious that reviews tend to point it out. Despite new gameplay, new engine etc, the new Larry was set in the same universe and had a very obvious tie/explanation to how it fit into older games of the same series. As far as I concern, Larry 5 and beyond was unnecessary. Larry 3 had the perfect ending.

TUROK was a reboot. Screw the old games, screw the old character, screw everything, lets make a game with dinousaurs and call it TUROK, like it was the first game of a new series. Yeah.

Far Cry 2 made people ask where-the-f is Jack Carver?!

Most reviewers pointed out that AitD5 had a character named "Edward Carnby" that wasn't just in the wrong era, he was much younger and definitely no academic anymore, and some also pointed out that universe had moved from Cthulhu mythos to Judeo-Christian mythos. Definitely a f-the-old movement.

XCom being the worst example of all ofcourse, but it's not released yet.

It's been released already ;)

http://www.mobygames.com/game/x-com-enforcer

http://www.mobygames.com/game/x-com-interceptor

I know about those, but they are set in the same universe I think, they are made by the same developer and they aren't really sequels. :)

Hey, guys. I'm the author of The Final Dungeon blog and I'm glad to see that my article sparked this conversation!

JemyM, I like your 3 categories. I think you hit on the real issue when you use the word "respect." When a publisher has no respect for the original games, it shows.

And I liked your article. This is one of the things I wish I would be able to write about somewhere where people actually read the article. I did miss Bard's Tale in my post so I add it now, clearly a WTF title.

I think Fallout 3: New Vegas is going to be more faithful to the previous games than what you think JemyM.

I judge it as a "new story", which means it's faithful to the old games while not being a true sequel. This isn't a value judgement. A new story might be fun in it's own and very faithful to the original games, but it isn't an actual sequel which would need it to continue the tale of the first titles.

Had New Vegas been a true sequel, the game would have to be directly related to the events of the first and second game. This might be the case (no one have played it yet so we do not know), but it seems to be a standalone story, thus no true sequel.