Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

When does and MMO need a "version II" as opposed to just more expansions?

ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662

The only sequel MMO I have played is EQII and I did not enjoy it as much as the original (I hear it has improved with time, but that was well after I stopped playing).  The other notorious sequel is Asheron's Call II and we all know what happened there.  The Lineage series is a 3rd, but I know nothing about either one of those games.  I did play City of Heroes, but never tried City of Villians (is that officially considered a sequel or just an expansion?)

So what dictates a company's decision to build an entirely new game instead of continuing to build on the original?  EQ is one of the first MMOs ever released and I think the devs had decided they couldn't go any further with its game engine.  So technology must play a role.  How about the game's popularity?  As long as a game remains a big hit, is there any need to make a new one?  WoW has been out for over 3 years now and I haven't heard of any plans for a WoW II.  Maybe when a game's subscription numbers start declining is when the idea of a sequel arises.  The other possibility I thought of is new game concepts.  If the devs want to create a new setting, new game lore, new factions, they may feel these ideas are too big to squeeze into the current game and require a whole new one.  Anyone else have any thoughts on what causes a company to make another huge capital investment based on the same theme after they have aleady made one?

Comments

  • bahamut1bahamut1 Member Posts: 614

    I doubt if you'll ever see a MMO II or MMO III any more. As we saw with AC2 and as SoE has admitted, naming a game after its predecessor is a mistake, for a number of reasons. While EQ2 has surpassed the popularity of EQ, they have admitted the naming of the game was a mistake and will not do it again.

    As far as building a sequel as opposed to updating the original...

    Sometimes it costs less, is more productive, and all around more practical to make a new game than try to update the old one. Game engine, gameplay, content, and a lot of other factors govern whether it's worth updating the original game too much. Some games you cannot update, and have to just start over. Technology changes, playstyles change, and sometimes software changes too much to make it worthwhile to update an old game.

    In the case of EQ2, they actually did NOT want to pull subscriptions from the original. It was actually aimed at a whole new audience. Again, another mistake that SoE freely admits.

    "Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."

  • Maximous621Maximous621 Member Posts: 56

    That's a good question. I think it is technology based. Good way to make a great game into a better game, enhancing the graphics, combat systems, and all that jazz that would be hard/impossible to do in a patch... I don't really know though...

  • AnofalyeAnofalye Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 7,433

    An expansion is to keep players and re-attract old players.

     

    A sequel is to get new players, just like a NEW game.

    - "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren

  • quixadhalquixadhal Member UncommonPosts: 215

    An expansion is a way to keep existing players happy and extend the storyline/content of an existing game.  A sequel is typically when the devs want to take the story in a radical direction (blow everything up and start after the dust settles again), or when the old engine just gets so dated that nobody wants to play despite the content.

    The example is, of course, Everquest vs. EQ2.  When EQ2 launched, they had set their storyline centuries in the future of the EQ1 world, after a cataclysm.  That allowed them to reshape the world and not have to stick rigidly to existing lore, but still pull favorite elements from the original game.

    EQ2 featured a radical redesign of combat (for those who didn't play at launch, it was almost impossible to solo because most mobs were "grouped" and you only got experience/loot if you killed every mob in a group) with encounter locking, a complex and deadly crafting system, and a tiered class system where you started as an "adventurer" and specialized as you gained levels.

    Bringing those kinds of changes to EQ1 would have had the same effect as the NGE did for Star Wars Galaxies.  Most of the faithful core players would have left.

    Additionally, you can slap a new graphics engine on an old game... but it's still an old game.  Anarchy Online is trying this, and while their graphics will be prettier, they will still have 3D models that won't take full advantage of what the new engine can do.  The code that handles physics won't know about new features either, so it won't be as fast as it could be.  Starting over with a sequel lets you move to newer technology.

    Of course, I do think the trend in the future will be away from naming them WoW 2, or EQ 3... Instead they'll have some new name with a tag line somewhere saying "set in the World of Warcraft" or whatever.

     

  • VyethVyeth Member UncommonPosts: 1,461

    You can always improve upon a game... Once it has become so polished that expansions roll out almost twice a year, the next step should be to slowly convert the world into something different (like a part 2).. DO NOT screw with any mechanics if they are and have been working.. The part 2 should be nothing more than a FREE (read: Without cost) expansion that changes the game world immensly (like starting towns npcs and factions) It would keep the game fresh and attract people...

    They need to make an rpg that is set in a medival old time setting but GRADUALLY works its way through history kind of (or A history).. Where eventually archers can begin to use guns and rifles and swords become energy weapons and towns become cities oir desolate wastelands...  If these games are siupposed to be "constantly evolving" then why do they always stay the same? Does time not move in these so called "progressive" games?

    Some of them dont even have in game clocks...

  • LionexxLionexx Member UncommonPosts: 680

    I loved AC3

    Playing: Everthing
    Played: DAoC,AC2,EvE,SWG,WAR,MXO,CoX,EQ2,L2,LOTRO,SB,UO,WoW.
    I have played every MMO that has ever come out.

  • so2404so2404 Member Posts: 57

    technology probably plays the biggest role in deciding sequel v expansion

    on a side note cov is considered a stand alone title/expansion when you play one you can play the other on same 15$ fee and they have intersecting zones

  • SharajatSharajat Member Posts: 926

    The other thing that is huge for determining when a game needs a sequel is when the population of older players becomes so entrenched that there is nowhere for new players to go.  That's the beginning of the end for an MMORPG.  When you have to keep adding new content for older players, but that just makes the gap for newer players bigger and bigger, and their world keeps getting less and less populated. 

    Most MMOs eventually hit this point, with the midrange areas being deadzones.  Even in WoW, how many people do you see when you're questing in Felwood/EPL/Un'Goro?  And that's the absolute most populated MMORPG. 

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

    -Thomas Jefferson

  • ianubisiianubisi Member Posts: 4,201

    Never.

    Sequels are the broken promise of a persistent world.

    Engines should be updated, the game should be kept fresh and renewed with content and revision.

    New games should be new IPs with new persistent worlds that also last as long as they are profitable.

  • CleffyIICleffyII Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 3,440

    A version II is necessary when a game is shipped in a box and the company behind it wishes to update thier graphics engines. This is primarily because of the business model.  However, this does not apply to many games without a box as they frequently update thier graphics engine.  This is also a moot point in most cases as there are a few games like EVE and Lineage II where the company updated the engine and no one minded.  However, with something like EQ2, applying that graphics engine to EQ would have been full of complaints with how High End the system requirements were.

    Its also necessary when a company wishes to keep the same IP but make drastic changes to the gameplay.  This is rare though.

    image

  • DevalonDevalon Member UncommonPosts: 496

    Before WoW and EQ2 an expansion did just that. For example you can look at DAoC almost every expansion except the free ones upgraded the graphics and improve the engine. This is why I like Mythic company better than Blizzard in releasing MMO expansions.

    Edit: For the question... Only time they need to release a new box is when the price of making exceeds the monthly payment. They can just add new servers for major changes or other such.

    --
    "Any free people have the right to choose how it wants to be govern thats the essence of democracy. It's sad when America has chosen for the stability and consistency of a dictatorship and doing it democratically" -utnow

Sign In or Register to comment.