Sup peoples, I was wondering if any other writers of the fantasy genre has done this before. Has any writers ever created a book, made another one with the same title(with a 2 at the end declaring it's a sequel), but the plot line is completely new from the first. I'm kind of talking on how the video game series Final Fantasy has done this. Lets say you write a book, and you call it "Final Fantasy". You finish it and when you write a completely new fantasy but call it "Final Fantasy 2". Do you guys get what I'm saying? Please tell me if I need to explain it better.
Not exactly but I have done something similar - I have four series based on my original book. Like Suikoden I use mostly the same world. Series 1: Is YA ish about Angus and Beatrice Series 2: is an adult spy/action/adventure using Angus' older brother Socrates but is contempoary to Angus and Beatrice Series 3: Time travel uses Socrates again but is set one-hundred-and-twenty years in the future from the other two. Series 4: Is set between Earth and my planet Litae - Involves main characters Crown Princess Alice aged 14 and a 15 year old Merlin. It is YA again. I have currently written a Novella with Socrates as a child and three books the first of each of the first three series. They are only sort of related but not really. It isn't a completely new one that is part of the same series but nor do they follow on from each other either.
Well I'm not going to call my book "Final Fantasy", but I noticed that my plot line for a book I am writing is fairly short. I was going to make it into a trilogy, so I figured why not put all three books into one. It would only be somewhat longer than average. But to get to the point. I figured what if I do what "Final Fantasy" did. Why not create a series of fantasy novels under one series name. It would work out fairly well with what I write.
Are they not connected? Same characters and place? It's one thing to provide a collection of shorts under one title, it's another two provide two different books with the same title that are unconnected.
Final Fantasy is an RPG series spanning 5 gaming consoles and more than 20 years. Each one is completely different from the one before it. Final Fantasy 7 has a main character called cloud in a unique scifi world, its protaganist, laws, nations, geography are all unique to that game, Final Fantasy 8 has a MC called Squall, different world different story, no connection what so ever. EG Tall Tales 1 set on the moon, about cheese, with a main character called ralph and a bad guy called Tenpenny. Tall Tales 2 set on mars, about apple pie, with a main character called The green power ranger and a bad guy called Zordon. No link whatsoever, it simply serves these days as a brandmark, people say Final Fantasy and they expect a good roleplaying game.
The only reason I could see for someone to do something like this would be to create a brand for their stories, which would ideally be connected in some way. The Final Fantasy game series is an odd example, if only because the biggest reason to put a "Final Fantasy" title on a game these days is as a marker--in other words, if you liked the past Final Fantasy games, here's more in the same vein. I have no idea why a newbie author would do this. If your book "Wiggly Worms" hasn't won a large readership who are clamoring for more, releasing "Wiggly Worms 2" is counterproductive. First of all, readership always, always drops between an original book and its sequel. That's inevitable. And most readers won't pick up a perceived sequel before the original book. That means if "Wiggly Worms 2" is your real masterpiece, you're shutting out a lot of audience from the outset, by giving it a title that suggests that it's a true sequel to "Wiggly Worms". On the flip side of the coin, someone who reads the original "Wiggly Worms" and is dying for a continuation so he knows what happens to his favorite characters will be disappointed when he purchases "Wiggly Worms 2" and finds that although it's by the same author, it's a completely different story. I would definitely expect some bewildered and frustrated readers with that kind of move. Why not pick a title that actually reflects what the book is about? That's usually a better bet.
That's not exactly true. Different characters, different stories yes. But they all take place on 'roughly' the same world. The magic stays consistent through out the series. FF1 had Thunder > Thundara > Thundaga, as have all of them since. Alot of the enemies and wildlife stay the same, Cactars and Chocobos are good examples. It is a dream (or "Fantasy") world though, and it is constantly changing, sometimes even during the course of a single game. Maybe it would be better to say that all the games take place in the same 'universe,' but still the games stay consistent with the series. Edit: The point is that all the FF games are connected to each other, with concepts, ideas, and rules that apply to all of them. They aren't just random games thrown into a series.
Okay, let me just put it this way. It's a bad idea and there's no reason to do it outside of you thinking a video game is totes cool.
That is what I thought although Final Fantasy is not my choice of game. My stories follow more of a Suikoden (another RPG series) model where the series is a tad irregular with its chornology but uses the same world and has some characters the same. I don't see why if the series had a title like the Chocobo Chronicles it couldn't work - if it was based on the elements that were similar.
Speaking of Final Fantasy, I picked up 13 yesterday.... But anyways, the only reason I think you would want to do this is if...you're writing stories in the same kind of world, but these stories and characters aren't really related in any kind of way. They do that with the current FF. Like 13 is set with specific mythology, and the one in development called Versus I think is using the same kind of myhthology, but is still completely different. Either way, I haven't seen books titled like that. Only time I see it is with videogames, or movies.
Thanks for all your guys input. Here's what I'm thinking. I was going to title the first book "Project Genesis", but then I thought "What if I make a series called "Project". So I would create a book called "Project Genesis", then I would make another fantasy book(different characters, different story) and call it "Project Something". Do you get what I'm saying?
If it's taking place in the same world, with the same rules, then it could work. Just so long there's something connecting the stories it shouldn't be a problem. If the stories are completely unconnected, or not taking place in the same world, or the magic/science is wildly different every story, then no, it wouldn't work. It would just be confusing.
Isn't this how J.K Rowling had her book into seven sequels? If I'm on the same page you're on, I don't think it's a bad idea to write a totally different plot of a new book from the first one. I am writing a movie script, and thinking about writing a sequel to the first one. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have new characters and not one single old character in the first book, especially if the plot is totallly different. It would be, in my opinion, compelling if the sequel had at least one character from the first book/movie and have totally different plots and different central conflicts.
For those who aren't familiar with the Final Fantasy franchise and have any interest whatsoever It's understandably difficult to think of examples of this, given how little it's done. Basically what OP is referring to is the idea of a series of works, all with the same title plus a conditional of some kind (A number or a word) that have nothing to do with each other. The three examples I can think of are all games - Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda and Advance Wars (yes, I'll explain in a moment). - Final Fantasy began as a very simple game on the Nintendo, containing the basic elements of what evolved into a complex web of RPG elements. Later iterations have become increasingly character driven with more and more minutia involved, which certain fans will tell you was a bad idea. - Zelda has always been an adventure game, starting with the NES and eventually becoming the 3D polygons you see in Twilight Princess. Gameplay has always revolved around real time combat with a limited tech pool. - Advance wars started on the GBA as a turn based strategy and pretty much just kept adding extras as the series went on before undergoing the same thing as the above in Days of Ruin (Or Dark Conflict in EU and AU) where the mechanics were tweaked and character roster completely reset. The basic idea is that persistent concepts are carried forwards in every iteration, even though things that you might consider core to the universe are completely different. For example the worlds, characters and story of every Final Fantasy game are different but reliably contain - Chocobo, a big yellow bird - Moogles, little fuzzy bear things - Gil, the trademark FF currency - Mythological references, usually via a summoning mechanic of some kind Everything else undergoes a complete makeover every game. In FF7, magic is accessed by everyone via materia, Spoiler which it turns out is the condensed life energy of the planet and forms a core part of the story . In FF Tactics Advance, magic is a skill that only certain professions can use while anyone can only be employed in two professions at any given time. Zelda has the same thing going on: - A princess named Zelda, usually captured/threatened by a villain named Ganondorf - The Triforce and the Master Sword, icons of power - Equipment: Bombs, shields, hookshots, boomerangs, bottles, bow and arrow, etc. - Rupees, the Zelda currency - Fairies, Goron, Zora and enemies - A sidekick character of some kind, sometimes purely a prompt but other times a core plot element (eg. Midna) Zelda's mechanics rarely undergo any serious rehashes because it's the mechanics that define the franchise. Every iteration seems to follow the same formula: - MC is pushed into trouble - Zelda is related in some way, usually under threat by some evil who turns out to be Ganondorf - MC must collect macguffins by navigating dungeons - Ganon has to be beaten up at least three times, usually turning into a horrible monster at some point. Get to the point already In short, I don't think this kind of venture works well in the written medium. Final Fantasy and the Zelda series are better thought of as completely separate games that contain common mundane elements. This way, people are less concerned with figuring out the elements that aren't fun. It's comforting to enter a new interactive experience that has familiar elements and it encourages them to put up with scary or unfamiliar concepts for longer, meaning that it's more likely to get them hooked. And then you've got the fanboys, who will put up with the worst garbage simply because it's got the franchise stamp on it. Oh, boy. This isn't a concept that works well in books - hell, if you try to explain this to gamers who haven't played these games, they'll think it's weird too. In books, people will assume that a common element in a book by the same author will mean that the mechanics are the same. There's less room for people to understand the differences in a given world because they're only ever on the receiving end and there's no place for learning experiences (unless you're really good at writing that kind of thing). Ultimately it's a nice idea, but if you're going to write under sequential titles (with books I would recommend you don't just add a number on the end) then you need a common core element. This would either be like a core character in different environments (like Sliders) or new characters in the same environment (like Discworld)
