Talk:Spiritual successor

message: This restates what is said in topics below, but here it is so more will notice.
It is imperative that examples added to the list include citations. The article used to be a mess of original research, full of outright speculation. Statements must also be attributed, particularly where they come from a party not involved in the production/creative process (eg. reviewers/critics). Extra citations and attributions from other such sources will add weight to these claims. At the time of writing, there are examples which say that a work "is considered" to be a spiritual successor to another work. This implies it to be a widely held view, which may not be the case; the view may be limited to that one source. Finally, there is not an actual need to expand the list. It is only meant to give a few notable examples. Five or six examples is really sufficient.--Drat (Talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read 

message: In both of these free steam games, it says in their store page descriptions that they are "spiritual successors" of the original Escape Velocity games.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.11.11 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endless Sky and NAEV 

message: While I think Doom 3 was influenced by System Shock 2, I don't know if it can really be considered a spiritual sequel.  To my knowledge there wasn't much team overlap.  And all of the other spiritual sequels either have serious team overlap or the inspiration of the original game was publicly acknowledged by the team. -- Hardgoodbye
:I highly doubt there would be any team overlap, but the general opinion I've seen is that it is so heavily inspired that it might as well be a spiritual sequel. By the way, don't forget to sign your comments.--DooMDrat 04:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if that makes it a "spiritual sequel", or just a rip-off?  It might be a moot point, considering the similarities... because there are alot of them.  I don't think we should list all rip-offs as spiritual sequels, but considering the high-profile nature of Doom 3, it's probably worth leaving it on the list. -- Hardgoodbye 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doom 3 was supposed to be a remake of the orriginal, not really a sequel to anything —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.149.52.26 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom 3 

message: The items added here need to be confirmed as being spiritual sequels/successors. Items should only be added if reliable sources can back them up (not because you think "Gee, Game X sure seems inspired by Game Y"). Otherwise it will become an indicriminate list (if it isn't already).--Drat (Talk) 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs checking! 

message: I can see how Starcraft is a spirtual sequel to Warcraft, but not Diablo.--70.16.14.116 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it's still Original Research, without sources.--Drat (Talk) 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warcraft=Diablo

message: Good points in your cleanup, Golbez.  I'm confused though - I would think that Shadow Warrior would fit the criteria for a spiritual sequel - produced by the same company with the same run engine and a similar style of gameplay and humor.  I'm not sure what other criteria we use to differentiate.  I think that Warcraft/Starcraft are in the same boat. Sraan 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being of the same engine, by the same company, with similar elements like a sense of humor doesn't necessarily make it a spiritual sequel. There's no... spirit? I don't know. It just doesn't feel right. Flashback shares many, many similarities with Out of This World - The control scheme, the look and feel, etc. The difference is, these control schemes and look and feels were unique for their day, whereas we can't say that every 3D first person shooter is a spiritual sequel of Wolf 3D. I think it probably also has to do with the intent of the developers (but obviously this isn't the only criteria, since different people developed Flashback and Out of this World - maybe we should add Flashback as a spiritual sequel of Prince of Persia as well?) - I can't speak for them, but I saw nothing in Shadow Warrior that said "We're making this as a spiritual sequel to Duke 3D", even though it was obvious with things like Ikaruga, Red Faction, probably Soul Blazer, but to draw broad lines like "Wolf 3D - Doom - Quake" or "Duke 3D - Shadow Warrior - Sin" is a bit much. --Golbez 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, if "not having the same feeling" is a factor, then maybe timesplitters series shouldn't be associated to goldeneye 007, it's just not the same thing. I don't know if the developers are the same or not, but time splitters 1 is very different from goldeneye 007. I also don't think perfect dark is much of a spiritual sequel, but thats a bit more similar. --LeinaD natipaC 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another problem is, this entire list is original research. --Golbez 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be about spiritiual sequels, not a list of them. Instead, the categories should be used, and would be self-maintaining.--Drat (Talk) 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't consider Doom/Quake to be that tenuous a connection. Quake III had references to Doom, and Doom III had weapons from Quake III. Also, the BFG is in every version of both games, with the exception of the original Quake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Morris (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow Warrior 

message: I've removed the list as none of it was sourced, and it was a magnet for everyone with an overactive imagination. Instead :Category:Unofficial sequels can be used. I've put an unreferenced tag on the article. This is actually a verifiable phenomena, so it'd be good to see some sources. Just don't want anyone over-reacting and tossing it on AFD within five seconds.--Drat (Talk) 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List removed 

message: I thought this AfD resulted in keep? There seems to be a lack of anything here...
--Hawkian
:I removed the list. The article mainly consisted of a list of spiritual sequels, and this article should be about spiritual sequels, not a mere list of them. The entire list was a magnet for original research. People were adding items to the list without providing any proof whatsoever, and it was pretty clear with some that it was a case of either overactive imagination, or mindless fanboy syndrome. A category is self-maintaining, as individual articles can be sourced more effectively, and is less likely to get out of control, like the list had.--Drat (Talk) 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article looks to have disappeared now, though. Sraan 03:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the list was the vast and overwhelming majority of the article.--Drat (Talk) 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, seriously, the whole article had disappeared.  It said there was no article by that name.  But it is back now, so nevermind. Sraan 20:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No article? 

message: This article would really benefit from an example of some kind. 210.49.218.220 06:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Masam, I don't think that EBA would qualify as a spiritual successor or sequel of Ouendan, it's really more of a localized remake along the lines of Man About The House versus Three's Company or all those other shows remade for Americans. Wasteland and Fallout are a much better example of a concept floating from one game to another, especially since they embody all the silliest tropes of an idea that won't quite die in spite of repeated theft, disownment and abuse. 208.54.14.12 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the example of Wasteland/Fallout is better, though I've seen others call Ouendan/EBA as spiritual successors.  However, prior, without examples, it could just be speculation, even if well known in the gaming community.  With examples and references as it is now, it does stand out as a better example.  (I've heard, but rather not put it in just yet, that Bioshock is a SS of System Shock, but I'd think just one well-referenced sample is better than trying to get every one in). --Masem 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bioshock is indeed a Spiritual Successor to SS2. I'll try to track down a source tomorrow. You should have seen the mess this article was before.--Drat (Talk) 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouendan and Elite Beat Agents 

message: Why is half the article spent talking about one specific example? Very underwhelming fancruft. In addition, why is it considered a video-game related article? The text establishes in the first sentence that it can apply to several forms of media. --Pathogen 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suspect that gaming is used the most because that's sort of where the term started. While others will disagree, the term came about because it didn't sound right to say "We're making a game like that one that flopped, and we're not using the original universe because nobody actually wanted it the first time." I do agree the article needs cleanup, and I'll do what I can. Like most things in internet / gaming culture, most of it won't be citable. Scumbag 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey

message: I can see both sides on the List / No List issue. On one hand, you're going to have people that think Game X is a spiritual sequel to Game Y. On the other hand, it's a great way to have examples of the concept. I'll add a few ones that the devs have literally said it, and hope that nobody else mucks with it. Scumbag 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction. I'm editing the examples given in the article as-is and only listing those... after some hard-core Fallout fanboy purgings. I'll keep the "don't add any more" bit on, though. Scumbag 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List versus No List 

message: Would Perfect Dark (the original) be considered a spiritual successor to Goldeneye (again, 64)?  They were both made by Rare back in its glory days as interesting spy FPS's with a large multiplayer component.  If they count, I think they should be added to the examples since they're very famous and influential. 24.183.105.170 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to find an interview with someone (like a Rare developer) that saids this specifically; otherwise, as you state it, it's original research and not appropriate for WP. --Masem 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldeneye/Perfect Dark? 

message: I found this page through the main article of Sequels and their different forms and was surprised to find it put so much emphasis on video games. Perhaps the term "spiritual sequel" began in the video game community, although I doubt that. The lead-in paragraph says that a spiritual sequel is "successor to a video game, movie, novel, comic, stage play, or television mini-series" and it would seem that is true. But only examples of video games are given and likewise the article is listed as a Video Game stub. What about those other media? I can not think of any examples at present but I know that I will be able to think of some, especially in television and comic books. Should this article be revised take some ofthe emphasis off games shared with other medias? Danleary25 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Game Article?

message: Street Fighter 2 hardly resembles the first, but still has the name of the first.  Wouldn't that make it a spiritual successor? 69.220.2.188 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's the other way around. Even then, you'd need a reliable source for the observation.--Drat (Talk) 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Fighter 2? 

message: I've noticed that at least a couple of the statements about the works, while sourced, do not actually attribute the claims to the person making them. Instead, they merely say "is considered", etc. In addition, multiple sources are really needed, as we can't just say "Reviewer X has described game Y as a spiritual sequel to game Z" and leave it at that.--Drat (Talk) 02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Often enough, developers just can't publicly state that their game is a spiritual successor of another game, because they don't own the rights to that game. So shouldn't it be enough when revierws state such things? Otherwise, it's not technically possible for a lot of very obvious examples to state that they are spiritual successors of another game. --Conti|✉ 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: "Creative teams rarely retain the copyright of their creations, often making attempts to create sequels for a product impossible."  This confused me a lot, so there may be a better way of expressing it.  I was about to suggest that the sentence is actually a typo for "Creature teams usually retain" on the grounds that if they gave up the copyright, they couldn't make it impossible for people to create sequels.  But now I realise it's meant to mean that the copyright goes to the studio or producer, so the creative team can't create the sequel.  However, even this concept needs further elucidation - surely if the product had been successful, the producer would usually be keen to allow a sequel to be produced? -20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Could Quake 2 be considered a spiritual successor to Quake 1? Flashn00b 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if reliable sources have described it as such. IIRC, a developer said it was a sequel in name only.--Drat (Talk) 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quake 2 

message: Whoa, this article was way different from what I expected. It's all about video games and I thought that 'spiritual successor' was a totally general term - I first saw in in Autocar magazine and they were talking about a car being the S.S. to another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin Pearson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The pre-existing term appears to have been used in reference to a game at some point (System Shock 2?) and thus taken root in an audience previously unfamiliar with it. I've always encountered it in reference to fictional works (films, books, etc). We need to find some examples to cite! 79.74.149.132 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different to what I expected 

message: I have moved a couple of the examples of spiritual successors to the previous paragraph describing why spiritual sequels are created. 86.130.156.162 (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in context 

message: I think Crysis should be added to this article as a spiritual succesor to FarCry because if you search on Google Crysis spiritual FarCry there are lots of webs that says this. Although it exists an official sequel FarCry 2, but Crysis and FarCry were done by Crytek while FarCry 2 not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.184 (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crysis 

message: No one's mentioned Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger. Would the former be considered a spiritual successor? If so, can someone add it? ForestAngel (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrono Cross? 

message: This isn't on here, so I think someone can put it on.
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/211826/spiritual-successors-the-13-best-unofficial-video-game-sequels
Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of video game spiritual successors 

message: I'm pretty sure red dead redemption is a sequel to red dead revolver, not a spiritual successor -_- Assassin|1511 07:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They are both made and published by the same people, and they share a fair deal of IP.  I tweaked it to more clearly point out the source within the text  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.189.21 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Dead? 

message: Can we add Snatch as a spiritual successor of Love, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.102.85 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snatch 

message: I am wondering about what the legality if spiritual successors is. Can some successors be considered derivative works, and therefore liable to court cases and lawsuits?
--EditCreateContribute (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spiritual successor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071220020617/http://www.xbox.com:80/en-US/games/p/perfectdarkzero/20060105-achievementhighlights.htm to http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/p/perfectdarkzero/20060105-achievementhighlights.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Spiritual successor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/articles/learn-how-perfect-dark-came-to-be-in-this-behind-t/1100-6433378/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316142941/http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/068/068109p1.html to http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/068/068109p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If a company made a game, would the previous game they made be called a predecessor, even if they was not in the same series?
:No, just a previous game. Also, Wikipedia talk pages are not Q&A spaces, they're for discussing the writing if the article, not its subject. Also, please remember to sign your posts. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a question regarding predecessors and sequels 

message: It's a spirtual successor to the game Adventure Forward 2 so you might want to add that to the list :3c 207.74.82.68 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars Align