#1 Posted by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

Is Requel really a necessary concept? Aside from having a nonsense name that I can't imagine anyone would actually think to search for, all it does is describe a remake with additional story content, which is something that could easily be covered on the Remake page.

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

When I created the page, I was thinking something like Fire Emblem 3, which is both a remake of the first game and is a substantial sequel to the game. It may sound dickish, but it's more than a remake. Maybe clean it up (Dragon Quest IV, for example, probably wouldn't be enough to belong)?

#3 Edited by Mento (2437 posts) -

I would bet a huge dollar amount that I could find several more examples. FireRed/LeafGreen? Shining Force: Dark Dragon? Oath in Felghana? Except they're all remakes with bonus extras, I suppose. It is a term that exists on Urbandictionary though, if that validates anything these days.

Actually, I don't think I could win that bet. And because I'm unable to pay a huge dollar amount, I guess I'd just end up being a Requel welch.

Moderator
#4 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: Remakes having added content, even whole new chapters or even characters, is kind of the norm now. In fact when one doesn't add a bit of new stuff it is generally seen as bad practice

#5 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -
#6 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: Just because they added a lot of new chapters/story bits doesn't really differentiate it from remakes that added a little new things. Some remakes even add whole new areas or gameplay options. Nothing about a remake means they can't add a load or a little bit of new content

A requel just isn't a common word as it is way to similar to a remake so has no real use

#7 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Blimble:

That's the point, though. I'm saying this page should be for things that add significantly more than that to the story. It's hard to call the second half of Zero Mission a "little new thing".

#8 Posted by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Blimble:

That's the point, though. I'm saying this page should be for things that add significantly more than that to the story. It's hard to call the second half of Zero Mission a "little new thing".

But it's still just part of the additional content created for the remake. The GameCube Resident Evil remake features new story content, but the only reason that it wouldn't fit your idea of this concept is that the content isn't appended to the end of the game. The basic fact is that both games are remakes that add additional story elements to their narratives.

#9 Edited by StaleCrouton (20 posts) -

I'd like to propose that the meaning of "requel" be changed to "a smelly/bad sequel". Example: "Man, Dragon Age II was such a requel!"

#10 Posted by Jeff (3415 posts) -

@Mento said:

I guess I'd just end up being a Requel welch.

Great work.

Staff
#11 Posted by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

@Jeff said:

@Mento said:

I guess I'd just end up being a Requel welch.

Great work.

Oh. OH.

Holy shit, why didn't I get that before? Mento, I commend you.

#12 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Hailinel:

Again, scope is also a pretty big part of this. It has to be more than a few scenes or addendums; it has to be another arc or story or series of acts or something like that. And I guess it should probably be on the end, too, continuing the events of the story from where the source game left off. I'd still say this concept is exclusive and definable enough to be a page distinct from a simple remake.

#13 Posted by believer258 (11621 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

When I created the page, I was thinking something like Fire Emblem 3, which is both a remake of the first game and is a substantial sequel to the game. It may sound dickish, but it's more than a remake. Maybe clean it up (Dragon Quest IV, for example, probably wouldn't be enough to belong)?

You mean a remake that's substantially different and/or has substantially more story content than the original, like Metroid Zero Mission?

In that case, maybe this could use a separate page but a better name than "requel" needs to be made up.

#14 Edited by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@believer258 said:

You mean a remake that's substantially different and/or has substantially more story content than the original, like Metroid Zero Mission?

Yea, kinda like that. When I created the page so long ago, I was probably thinking of Fire Emblem 3, since that's both a remake and a sequel. (I just noticed that I said the same thing in what you quoted of me. Effing reading comprehension.)

In that case, maybe this could use a separate page but a better name than "requel" needs to be made up.

I've done far worse. (You guys can go ahead and change that name. I only used it because I couldn't think of anything clearer.)

#15 Posted by living4theday258 (678 posts) -

@believer258 said:

In that case, maybe this could use a separate page but a better name than "requel" needs to be made up.

such as?

#16 Posted by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Video_Game_King said:

When I created the page, I was thinking something like Fire Emblem 3, which is both a remake of the first game and is a substantial sequel to the game. It may sound dickish, but it's more than a remake. Maybe clean it up (Dragon Quest IV, for example, probably wouldn't be enough to belong)?

You mean a remake that's substantially different and/or has substantially more story content than the original, like Metroid Zero Mission?

In that case, maybe this could use a separate page but a better name than "requel" needs to be made up.

Problem there being, where do you draw the line between "regular" remake and "super awesome deluxe" remake?

#17 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@living4theday258 said:

@believer258 said:

In that case, maybe this could use a separate page but a better name than "requel" needs to be made up.

such as?

Seboot, obviously.

#18 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

Problem there being, where do you draw the line between "regular" remake and "super awesome deluxe" remake?

.....20-25% more story content as a follow-up?

#19 Posted by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Hailinel said:

Problem there being, where do you draw the line between "regular" remake and "super awesome deluxe" remake?

.....20-25% more story content as a follow-up?

I don't think measuring content in that manner is helpful. And besides, didn't your initial example of Fire Emblem 3 remove content from the original storyline to make room for the second chapter?

#20 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Hailinel:

Touche. I counter with "I believe they only removed six chapters, while Book 2 added somewhere around 24".

I think a serious, more general rule would be "if the story is continued through a separate menu option altogether, it's probably a requel". It's not perfect (Zero Mission, games which might have started with a story menu option in the first place), but it is restrictive enough to work (FE3, Chronicles of Riddick, Phantom Brave, etc.).

#21 Posted by believer258 (11621 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@believer258 said:

@Video_Game_King said:

When I created the page, I was thinking something like Fire Emblem 3, which is both a remake of the first game and is a substantial sequel to the game. It may sound dickish, but it's more than a remake. Maybe clean it up (Dragon Quest IV, for example, probably wouldn't be enough to belong)?

You mean a remake that's substantially different and/or has substantially more story content than the original, like Metroid Zero Mission?

In that case, maybe this could use a separate page but a better name than "requel" needs to be made up.

Problem there being, where do you draw the line between "regular" remake and "super awesome deluxe" remake?

*shrugs shoulders*

This is a case where both outcomes are perfectly justifiable to me. You could say "Metroid Zero Mission is a remake of the original Metroid" and if someone is more interested they will then find out that Zero Mission resembles the original Metroid about as much as apple pie resembles pepperoni pizza. Or you could have it VGK's way and differentiate (by ear, the line isn't easily drawn) what is a remake and what is a, er, "requel". Both are pretty valid as far as I'm concerned, but after thinking about it I'm leaning toward getting rid of VGK's way and just saying "remake" for everything from Halo Anniversary to the now-too-often mentioned Metroid Zero Mission. Less efficient, but also a whole lot less smudgy gray area for people to argue in. And if there's one thing the internet does not need, it's more things to argue about.

But of course here we are, arguing about whether there should be a differentiation in the first place, and then we'll go into what is and is not a remake. Fuck, we ought to be politicians.

...can anyone think of something that isn't a JRPG or Metroid Zero Mission? Or Mega Man Powered Up? And now I'm just rambling.

#22 Posted by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Hailinel:

Touche. I counter with "I believe they only removed six chapters, while Book 2 added somewhere around 24".

I think a serious, more general rule would be "if the story is continued through a separate menu option altogether, it's probably a requel". It's not perfect (Zero Mission, games which might have started with a story menu option in the first place), but it is restrictive enough to work (FE3, Chronicles of Riddick, Phantom Brave, etc.).

Isn't that less "Fire Emblem 3 is a remake of Fire Emblem 1" and more "Fire Emblem 3 is a sequel with a downsized version of the original included"?

#23 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Hailinel:

It's hard to call it downsized when it's 20 chapters long, only slightly less than the sequel within it.

#24 Edited by Hailinel (23846 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Hailinel:

It's hard to call it downsized when it's 20 chapters long, only slightly less than the sequel within it.

They still removed content from it.

But we're getting off track by debating the merits of a single game. My point is that the addition of story content appended to the end of the game, no matter how much, is not worth classifying it as a separate form of remake.

In any case, I'm going to leave the debate here before mods start coming in and complaining about how we're turning another request into a long-winded argument.

#25 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Hailinel:

Why? It's not something that all remakes do; there are enough games that do it; and the scope of the new content would dictate that it's an important factor in the game, especially given how important story is in many games today.

#26 Posted by TooWalrus (13135 posts) -
@Hailinel: I'm with you, this time. This whole area is too gray, and there's no real definition of 'requel' here. The other guys in the thread are mentioning stuff like Pokemon FireRed & LeafGreen, which are just graphically updated versions with a little new content and when you open that door- what's stopping stuff like Persona 4: The Golden from being added? No, this can be deleted, it's a silly concept.
#27 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@TooWalrus said:

what's stopping stuff like Persona 4: The Golden from being added?

That it's not really a sequel? From what I can tell, the story still pretty much ends with Yu getting on that train. It's not like he stays behind for an extra three months.

#28 Posted by TooWalrus (13135 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: I was just comparing it to the other games on that list (and Pokemon, as suggested). I think it's just as much of a sequel as Nightmare in Dreamland is, right? I suppose I haven't played it since 2002, but I don't exactly remember it pushing forward the Kirby narrative.
#29 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@TooWalrus:

That game could probably be removed from the page. Then again, I don't remember much about it, either, so maybe?

#30 Posted by Superkenon (1379 posts) -

I think REQUEL is a fun term, but if anyone saw it as a descriptor I think it would only raise more questions than answers -- if this thread is any indication -- and thus doesn't really serve its purpose. It's not immediately apparent what it means, and even then is sorta fuzzy. I don't think the concept is invalid... but perhaps a more apt-sounding term is called for.

#31 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: See now you are just getting a really mixed up definition. People don't want to think about all these factors when figuring out if something is a requel or remake. Plus the term is never used and I don't see it catching on as it is kind of useless.People don't need to know that a remake contains 25% new content straight away. Just calling it a remake is fine

#32 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Blimble:

That 25% comment was a joke.

#33 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: I know. I was just pointing out how the word isn't useful

#34 Posted by Video_Game_King (35975 posts) -

@Blimble:

Requel? Then couldn't we just come up with a better term instead of throwing out the concept altogether?

#35 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: The concept isn't needed though. We don't need a word for a remake with an undefined amount of more content which can be seen by no one adopting the term

#36 Edited by StaleCrouton (20 posts) -

To me, by its very nature, a remake implies that it has been changed from the original version. There is no need to arbitrarily quantify how much it has changed by adding another term and muddying the waters.