burtlo

I feel as though our naming conventions for media do not accurately reflect the state of sophistication of the viewer. What I mean to draw your attention to is the use of a numeric value proceeding the reoccurring name used in the title (i.e. Fallout 3, Gears of War 2, Ironman 2, etc.).

The use of an incrementing value provides the consumer with a method of distinction between it and previous and future titles while maintaining the same core brand identity. It, secondly, provides a manner to understand the order or progression in a continuing story (However, this is not the case with porn which often revisits titles with new characters and new scenarios without continuing a singular timeline).

While the use of a numeric is useful and perhaps necessary with media with a quicker, more frequent release cycle (i.e. comics, porn, television) I feel that it does an artistic injustice to media that is released on longer release cycles (i.e. movies, videogames).

I believe that media consumers are sophisticated enough to understand the implied sequential order of releases when they come every two to three years. While I have no evidence to support this mental model exists in consumers, it seems to me that if media exceeds the convention of annual releases, it is often free of the complete consumer cycle (pre-consume, primary-consume, secondary-consume, saturation) allowing the consumer to cleanse their palette.

Media released on this schedule often needs to stand on their own through their storytelling or illustration devices. This allows the consumer to enjoy the media without the prerequisite understanding of the previous incarnation of the media. So again the use of a numeric value seems to me as a redundant semaphore

Lastly, why this bothers me so much is that in the future when I reflect upon the media that I have consumed I detest the idea of referring solely to it by the numeric component. I believe there are individuals that inherently understand this and understand the importance of giving a memorable title to their media. This, I believe is evidenced by a number of great stories (i.e. When I talk about the latest Batman movie I fortunately get to refer to it as "The Dark Knight" and not Batman 2).

I think this offense is most prevalent in the video game industry. Which publishes a number of stories I find memorable but fails to be classy by using a numbering system for sequels. This is inherently a problem with the media also being a software product (Software lends itself well to versioning with numbers) as the media is more than the story and also the platform for development and the multiplayer experience.

This is really a thinly disguised rant that is to illustrate that I am thoroughly disappointed that the recent release of Fallout is referred to as Fallout 3 and not Fallout: DC or Fallout: Vault 101. However, I think that as gaming as a platform continues it needs to get some more class.