I think the misconception is that Franchise + Numbers = Sequels.
Just because you put a number at the end of an existing title, it doesn't make the game you're slapping that label on a sequel. Likewise, you don't have to carry over the old title with a new number to make a sequel.
There's more to making a sequel than just taking an existing game, putting it in a blender and adding, replacing and removing as you see fit.
When there has already been at least one sequel to a game, it's actually much easier. At any given moment you can take your design and compare it to what's already there. Ask yourself "Would these work as a trilogy/series?" and if the answer is No, you're probably doing something wrong.
Granted, not all sequels share the original vision, but that's what distinguishes GOOD sequels. For example, the Matrix trilogy really isn't a trilogy, it's a film and a sequel split in half -- Matrix 3 could easily have been made an expansion pack to Matrix 2 if they had been games.
The debate really isn't about semantics. It doesn't matter what you want to call the game, it's about the relationship between the new game and the old games. And that relationship is vastly different from that between the first two games and much closer to that of the originals with the acknowledged spin-offs -- so don't go around denying its nature just because you need the moneys.
Just because you put a number at the end of an existing title, it doesn't make the game you're slapping that label on a sequel. Likewise, you don't have to carry over the old title with a new number to make a sequel.
There's more to making a sequel than just taking an existing game, putting it in a blender and adding, replacing and removing as you see fit.
When there has already been at least one sequel to a game, it's actually much easier. At any given moment you can take your design and compare it to what's already there. Ask yourself "Would these work as a trilogy/series?" and if the answer is No, you're probably doing something wrong.
Granted, not all sequels share the original vision, but that's what distinguishes GOOD sequels. For example, the Matrix trilogy really isn't a trilogy, it's a film and a sequel split in half -- Matrix 3 could easily have been made an expansion pack to Matrix 2 if they had been games.
The debate really isn't about semantics. It doesn't matter what you want to call the game, it's about the relationship between the new game and the old games. And that relationship is vastly different from that between the first two games and much closer to that of the originals with the acknowledged spin-offs -- so don't go around denying its nature just because you need the moneys.