If you follow that path of thinking, then Vanguard : Saga of Heroes is the "spiritual successor" to Everquest. It also was developed by people who worked on the original Everquest, and Impliments ideas the original Everquest didn't/couldn't use. In fact, I think I even remember reading an interview where the term "spiritual succesor to Everquest" was used. Why wasn't that on the list? I still maintain it has to do with limited entries in the superhero genre for MMOs.
It's not "because there are limited options in the genre." The reasons I laid out in the article pretty much speak for themselves. As for Vanguard. I suppose, sure, that's true. Though with EQII already well out the door by the time Vanguard was made, the expectations that were put on the game weren't that of a sequel. Claiming to be a spiritual successor to sell a few boxes isn't the same as being one.
Champions, on the other hand, has been held up by media and players as a follow-up to City of Heroes since it was first announced. Either way, you're free to have your opinion.
I'm a huge fan of sequels and prequels, because it adds to the original story. I'm the type that has read every Star Wars adult novels ranging from the Old Republic times to the New Republic times. The type that reads entire series of books.
I'd be thrilled if more MMO's, the good ones, made sequels. The problem is that most MMO's don't have a central story, so making a sequel is essentially just creating a different time period. If all you're doing is advancing the time line, you could do that with an expansion. In fact, you can even advance the story with expansions, so a sequel isn't really necessary. But still, sequels would benefit the genre by allowing an older game to bow out gracefully, and allowing developers to create a similar game with updated features. For example, fans of DAoC have been clamoring for a sequel for years. DAoC is still a decent looking game, but the gameplay, animations, and movement is archaic compared to modern day MMO's. So Mythic could really do the game justice by creating a sequel that captures the essence of DAoC, and implementing all the things they wished they could do with DAoC in DAoC 2. So you'd have a sequel that looks a lot better, plays a lot smoother, and contains modern day features that gamers have come to expect, yet are still able to get the same experience they got in the old DAoC.
Where sequels fail is when they do too much different. The core audience of sequels are the players who played the first game. So it's bad to alienate them by introducing a sequel that doesn't play or really remind them of the original game at all. So I think Sequels could work for this genre, but they need to really be successors of the original game, not a totally different game than the original, where the only thing the two games share is lore, the name, and maybe a few features.
Yeah, you know sequels are an important element in any genera of entertainment except music itself. But I think only a few games can title there new creations as being "sequels" Those games are final fantasy, kings quest, and all those games that sort of invented the idea of "sequels." In general all mmos need to continue to label there additions and updates as they currently do. i.e. Eve , Jumpgate, PWI, Runes of Magic, and all those that don't put a number 2 or 3.... beside their new titles. In other words, a "sequel is implied by simply updating their titles.
Actually your more right then you think . In music plenty of artists have the problem of, 'second album syndrome', where the first record by them is so well recieved that theres a huge pressure to do better with the second or in their ego induced way do something completely different. If your looking for an example compare Justin Timberlakes first two albums with Ascherons Calls first two games.
Both had successful first outings which established a fanbase but that said fanbase got very annoyed when their second realease was very different and didn't conform to their standards or go down a similar route. Lucky for Mr Timberpants he doesn't have sever costs and a monthly fee to think about . It might be strecthing the concept of sequels a bit but it is their in music
Anyway good article, I don't always find all of these weekly articles of interest but I'm glad MMORPG is expanding these sort of things so good work and keep it up
Kind of an interesting fact when discussing sequel's, that Wow is really a sequel of EQ done by it's players. The top echelon of Blizzard's Wow team were all ex EQ raiders who wanted to do a better design. When you get down to it, most of MMO's today are EQ sequels. They use the same formula with few variations. A sequel does not have to be identified by a similar name.
If you did COH and CO then you should have put warhammer as DAOC 2 in there also. Different IP yes, but definitly it was same the company, same genre, and even feature their same patented "RvR".
And like a previous poster said about why AC2 failed so did Warhammer failed. Instead of making WH a DAOC 2 they alienated every mythic fan that was salivating over Mythic's next project.
Actually, you are correct on the fact that Champions is a sequel. For two reasons: Sequels are in fact spiritual successors of previous works. (1) CoH was cryptics work and also the fact that it is the (2) successor of the pen and paper game becuase if I read correctly much of the content takes off from where the p+p left off.
So you are right in a technical way.
Sorry, no abuse here.
And, I am going to be happy to get back into the FF Online franchise through the release of XIV. That was the one game that I wish I never left. And to top it off I left it for wow.
Turbine really needs to do a REAL sequel to Asheron's Call. AC2 was not worthy of the Asheron's Call name. I still feel it was just a tech demo for Turbine that helped them procure rights to DnD and LOTR.
I also think it is fair to call Champions Online a sequel to City of Heroes/Villians...because that is what it is. Same goes for WAR and DAOC.
I am surprised SW:TOR wasn't discussed because it really is a done-right-this-time sequel (prequel acutally) to SWG.
Turbine really needs to do a REAL sequel to Asheron's Call. AC2 was not worthy of the Asheron's Call name. I still feel it was just a tech demo for Turbine that helped them procure rights to DnD and LOTR. I also think it is fair to call Champions Online a sequel to City of Heroes/Villians...because that is what it is. Same goes for WAR and DAOC. I am surprised SW:TOR wasn't discussed because it really is a done-right-this-time sequel (prequel acutally) to SWG.
Turbine did do a real sequel it's just that AC 1 fanbois are simple minded and couldn't see it. I have played both and AC2 is far and away a better overall product with better gameplay. Just a shame that they had to release it to far in advance.. Here is a post from another player that saw the similarities of the two that others failed to see. I think this guy hit it right on the spot.
Posted by BesCirga
No, cleary its your line of thinking is the wrong choice. He got to enjoy a great game, did you? I swear, everytime I read these kind of posts, AC2 wasnt AC1 with updated graphics - /whine, I smile alittle. Not because they are funny, but rather of their ignorance. Most former AC1 players, me included, had a hard time recognizing AC1's features through AC2 layout. We didnt see what we wanted to see, but AC1 and AC2 are/was almost identical with minor differences.
•Level/Skill hybid system with skills raised by earned XP
•Both games had the same twitchy combat
•melee/missile/magic defense and offense system
•Both had seamless worlds to explore
•Full random loot system
•Same death penalty
These are the things AC2 had taken from AC1 that was important to me. There were many more features taken from AC1, which were just presented differently in AC2.
Some differences between the two:
•In AC1; you set your "skill setup" in Character Creation and improved your current setup as you leveled. In AC2; you build your "skill setup" as you leveled up. (I choose not to say class because in teory, you didnt need to be one)
•AC1 had stats, AC2 didnt. Atleast not viewable.
•AC2 had a functional and enjoyable melee combat system. A pure melee build wasnt "inferior" like in AC1.
•AC1 had housing
•AC2 had mounts
Even with these diffences, the core of AC1 RPG rules and gameplay was put into AC2. Blaming Turbine for you not recognizing the features, seems rather silly to me. You even hail AC1 for their semi-twitch combat system, dodging arrows and spells FTW!... when the truth is, AC2 had the very same thing. Identical.
One thing is sure. Turbine had a lose - lose situation pleasing the AC1 fans...
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
I just pray that EQ next is better than EQ2 was a sequal..
EQ2 was the first MMO that really let down my expecations for the future of this genre...took all i liked about EQ and made it into a linear world you could barely recongise...no wonder since its expansions are all nostoglia EQ1 trips..
And how can your sequals cahracter models be more bland and dull than the originals..hmm
Jon, Actually, you are correct on the fact that Champions is a sequel. For two reasons: Sequels are in fact spiritual successors of previous works. (1) CoH was cryptics work and also the fact that it is the (2) successor of the pen and paper game becuase if I read correctly much of the content takes off from where the p+p left off. So you are right in a technical way. Sorry, no abuse here. And, I am going to be happy to get back into the FF Online franchise through the release of XIV. That was the one game that I wish I never left. And to top it off I left it for wow. I deserve abuse for that alone. Best, Frank
Actually CO lured the pnp game into a dark alley and mugged it. The two don't have very much in common. The rules are way different and the IP has enough key differences to keep it from being called a "spiritual successor". For example the pnp main villain, Dr.Destroyer, is a technological genius determined to take over the world. In CO he's a mystic who wants to deliver the world to his Lovecraftian overlords. Anyone familiar with any version of the pnp game knows that Destroy submits to no one.
Also look at Defender, what kind of powered armor leaves half his face and all of his neck exposed?
On a brighter note I really hope Planetside 2 is going to be made. It is nice to see Sony asking the questions for it. Now we just need a survey from Turbine about the next chapter of AC.
They also already brought Planetside2.com. However only logical before someone else does. My guess this game is very early in the development stage (The building of requirement documentation, hence the poll) and maybe some early designs. Looking forward to it though. However my faith in SoE is not to big and big change it will not be anything like PS1.
Well your list clearly shows that mmo sequals are a bad idea.
There is also no need to make a sequal of an mmo, you can keep improviing and adding to an mmo, that is the whole point.
So far I have not seen any successfull sequal to an existing mmo, that did not split up the playerbase and where the sum of the parts became bigger than the original.
If you make a sequal to an mmo, you are basically admitting failure with your original.
Clearly one of the few examples of how it should be done is EVE Online, with free expansions, a future vision ( even tho I don't always agree with where they are going ) and keep improving graphics, sound ( uhm yah nm that ) and gameplay.
Perhaps Guild Wars 2 may be different, but the 1st part can hardly be called an mmo anyway. And Jumpgate Evoluion will be very different from Jumpgate ( which has such low sub number it will be hard to do worse ).
So back to my point, mmo sequals are a bad idea and admitting you failed on your 1st attempt and did not try to fix it.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
Without the horror show that was AO's launch...<shudder>. I swear to this very day, when someone uses the phrase worst launch, AO's comes to mind automatically. I'm always amazed that they managed recover to the extent that they did from that.
[quote]Originally posted by CyberWiz [b]Well your list clearly shows that mmo sequals are a bad idea. There is also no need to make a sequal of an mmo, you can keep improviing and adding to an mmo, that is the whole point.[/quote]
Well I was mentioning Wakfu and Dofus earlier... they prove this point. Wakfu is at the moment a seni-failure. It's still in beta (after a year) so there's still hope... But the open beta, after almost two years of hyping it, has deceived a lot of people, because most announced features were not there. (Yes, the fact that is was a Beta has been made countless times... but nowadays, open betas are supposed to be complete games and only to track the last few bugs, not just a sneak peek of a game.) That gives credit to this column and this one too, I guess.
On the other hand Dofus 2.) is launching in December. Now it has been in development as long as Wakfu, but only a screenshot here and there has been released. It's "only" graphics and performance enhancement, not a full new game, but it does resolves the problem of aging graphics.
If you follow that path of thinking, then Vanguard : Saga of Heroes is the "spiritual successor" to Everquest. It also was developed by people who worked on the original Everquest, and Impliments ideas the original Everquest didn't/couldn't use. In fact, I think I even remember reading an interview where the term "spiritual succesor to Everquest" was used. Why wasn't that on the list? I still maintain it has to do with limited entries in the superhero genre for MMOs.
It's not "because there are limited options in the genre." The reasons I laid out in the article pretty much speak for themselves. As for Vanguard. I suppose, sure, that's true. Though with EQII already well out the door by the time Vanguard was made, the expectations that were put on the game weren't that of a sequel. Claiming to be a spiritual successor to sell a few boxes isn't the same as being one.
Champions, on the other hand, has been held up by media and players as a follow-up to City of Heroes since it was first announced. Either way, you're free to have your opinion.
Having played AO several times and I do like it. Just not the interface (wish they would modernize it). I was wondering if Fallen Earth is anything like it. I'm going to get FA in the next few days to check it out I think.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
I'm actually hoping for another Everquest. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I just hope they go "back to their roots" more with a more group-oriented game-play experience.
Yes, this. If they were to take the spirit of EQ1 add modern day visuals and features, they would have a big winner.
Which will actually be the game everyone wanted 3 years ago.
And this would be a good thing.
Sequels only work if they build on what has come before and not change everything that make the original good.
""But Coyote, you could learn! You only prefer keyboard and mouse because that's all you've ever known!" You might say right before you hug a rainforest and walk in sandals to your drum circle where you're trying to raise group consciousness of ladybugs or whatever it is you dirty goddamn hippies do when you're not busy smoking pot and smelling bad." Coyote's Howling: Death of the Computer
Only EA loves making sequls more than Blizzard. Diablo 2 & 3, Warcraft 2 & 3, Battlechess 2, Starcraft 2...
It would surprise me a lot if Blizzard wont make a Wow2, even though it wont be anything we see in the next few years, no need to compete with themselves.
well the key thing IF they want to make a sequel is to not alienate your current player base. if nothing else you will sustain current subscribers with a good familiar design, so if current players are tired of the old game will find the new one a nice change of pace.
Plus if they add a few new elements and make the game have more re-play value as well as fun activities within the game that give it more addictive playability the better.
That way they may gain new subscribers as well as appease your already fanbase. Consistency, value, quality and overall fun seem to be some key factors to paying close attention also when doing a sequel. And reading reviews about your own game can help a good bit, plus in-game questionaires of the original. that way they can really get a feel for what worked and what didn't and carry over all the favorite things of the original. Then add some more possibly innovative elements.
Im shocked that you did not include Ultima Online and its endless expansions (or sequels by definition), for anyone who started out on UO i have found that most are still looking for a game that includes so many facets as this pioneer of the mmo era. But still a very good article.
Comments
It's not "because there are limited options in the genre." The reasons I laid out in the article pretty much speak for themselves. As for Vanguard. I suppose, sure, that's true. Though with EQII already well out the door by the time Vanguard was made, the expectations that were put on the game weren't that of a sequel. Claiming to be a spiritual successor to sell a few boxes isn't the same as being one.
Champions, on the other hand, has been held up by media and players as a follow-up to City of Heroes since it was first announced. Either way, you're free to have your opinion.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
I'm a huge fan of sequels and prequels, because it adds to the original story. I'm the type that has read every Star Wars adult novels ranging from the Old Republic times to the New Republic times. The type that reads entire series of books.
I'd be thrilled if more MMO's, the good ones, made sequels. The problem is that most MMO's don't have a central story, so making a sequel is essentially just creating a different time period. If all you're doing is advancing the time line, you could do that with an expansion. In fact, you can even advance the story with expansions, so a sequel isn't really necessary. But still, sequels would benefit the genre by allowing an older game to bow out gracefully, and allowing developers to create a similar game with updated features. For example, fans of DAoC have been clamoring for a sequel for years. DAoC is still a decent looking game, but the gameplay, animations, and movement is archaic compared to modern day MMO's. So Mythic could really do the game justice by creating a sequel that captures the essence of DAoC, and implementing all the things they wished they could do with DAoC in DAoC 2. So you'd have a sequel that looks a lot better, plays a lot smoother, and contains modern day features that gamers have come to expect, yet are still able to get the same experience they got in the old DAoC.
Where sequels fail is when they do too much different. The core audience of sequels are the players who played the first game. So it's bad to alienate them by introducing a sequel that doesn't play or really remind them of the original game at all. So I think Sequels could work for this genre, but they need to really be successors of the original game, not a totally different game than the original, where the only thing the two games share is lore, the name, and maybe a few features.
Actually your more right then you think
. In music plenty of artists have the problem of, 'second album syndrome', where the first record by them is so well recieved that theres a huge pressure to do better with the second or in their ego induced way do something completely different. If your looking for an example compare Justin Timberlakes first two albums with Ascherons Calls first two games.
Both had successful first outings which established a fanbase but that said fanbase got very annoyed when their second realease was very different and didn't conform to their standards or go down a similar route. Lucky for Mr Timberpants he doesn't have sever costs and a monthly fee to think about
. It might be strecthing the concept of sequels a bit but it is their in music 
Anyway good article, I don't always find all of these weekly articles of interest but I'm glad MMORPG is expanding these sort of things so good work and keep it up
Kind of an interesting fact when discussing sequel's, that Wow is really a sequel of EQ done by it's players. The top echelon of Blizzard's Wow team were all ex EQ raiders who wanted to do a better design. When you get down to it, most of MMO's today are EQ sequels. They use the same formula with few variations. A sequel does not have to be identified by a similar name.
If you did COH and CO then you should have put warhammer as DAOC 2 in there also. Different IP yes, but definitly it was same the company, same genre, and even feature their same patented "RvR".
And like a previous poster said about why AC2 failed so did Warhammer failed. Instead of making WH a DAOC 2 they alienated every mythic fan that was salivating over Mythic's next project.
What a load of crap, Champions is more a spirtual successor to CoX rather than a sequal (would you call Bioshock and prequal to system shock?).
Guild War's stand alone expansions? Not really sequals.
Oh well, Jon article's are normally decent so i'll let him have a couple of mistakes.
Jon,
Actually, you are correct on the fact that Champions is a sequel. For two reasons: Sequels are in fact spiritual successors of previous works. (1) CoH was cryptics work and also the fact that it is the (2) successor of the pen and paper game becuase if I read correctly much of the content takes off from where the p+p left off.
So you are right in a technical way.
Sorry, no abuse here.
And, I am going to be happy to get back into the FF Online franchise through the release of XIV. That was the one game that I wish I never left. And to top it off I left it for wow.
I deserve abuse for that alone.
Best,
Frank
Like other posters...I would love a new Everquest to be in SOE's plans.
Turbine really needs to do a REAL sequel to Asheron's Call. AC2 was not worthy of the Asheron's Call name. I still feel it was just a tech demo for Turbine that helped them procure rights to DnD and LOTR.
I also think it is fair to call Champions Online a sequel to City of Heroes/Villians...because that is what it is. Same goes for WAR and DAOC.
I am surprised SW:TOR wasn't discussed because it really is a done-right-this-time sequel (prequel acutally) to SWG.
Oh, I din't see Dofus-Arena and Wakfu spin-off and sequel to Dofus.
A good column thoug, as usual.
Turbine did do a real sequel it's just that AC 1 fanbois are simple minded and couldn't see it. I have played both and AC2 is far and away a better overall product with better gameplay. Just a shame that they had to release it to far in advance.. Here is a post from another player that saw the similarities of the two that others failed to see. I think this guy hit it right on the spot.
Posted by BesCirga
No, cleary its your line of thinking is the wrong choice. He got to enjoy a great game, did you? I swear, everytime I read these kind of posts, AC2 wasnt AC1 with updated graphics - /whine, I smile alittle. Not because they are funny, but rather of their ignorance. Most former AC1 players, me included, had a hard time recognizing AC1's features through AC2 layout. We didnt see what we wanted to see, but AC1 and AC2 are/was almost identical with minor differences.
•Level/Skill hybid system with skills raised by earned XP
•Both games had the same twitchy combat
•melee/missile/magic defense and offense system
•Both had seamless worlds to explore
•Full random loot system
•Same death penalty
These are the things AC2 had taken from AC1 that was important to me. There were many more features taken from AC1, which were just presented differently in AC2.
Some differences between the two:
•In AC1; you set your "skill setup" in Character Creation and improved your current setup as you leveled. In AC2; you build your "skill setup" as you leveled up. (I choose not to say class because in teory, you didnt need to be one)
•AC1 had stats, AC2 didnt. Atleast not viewable.
•AC2 had a functional and enjoyable melee combat system. A pure melee build wasnt "inferior" like in AC1.
•AC1 had housing
•AC2 had mounts
Even with these diffences, the core of AC1 RPG rules and gameplay was put into AC2. Blaming Turbine for you not recognizing the features, seems rather silly to me. You even hail AC1 for their semi-twitch combat system, dodging arrows and spells FTW!... when the truth is, AC2 had the very same thing. Identical.
One thing is sure. Turbine had a lose - lose situation pleasing the AC1 fans...
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
I just pray that EQ next is better than EQ2 was a sequal..
EQ2 was the first MMO that really let down my expecations for the future of this genre...took all i liked about EQ and made it into a linear world you could barely recongise...no wonder since its expansions are all nostoglia EQ1 trips..
And how can your sequals cahracter models be more bland and dull than the originals..hmm
Actually CO lured the pnp game into a dark alley and mugged it. The two don't have very much in common. The rules are way different and the IP has enough key differences to keep it from being called a "spiritual successor". For example the pnp main villain, Dr.Destroyer, is a technological genius determined to take over the world. In CO he's a mystic who wants to deliver the world to his Lovecraftian overlords. Anyone familiar with any version of the pnp game knows that Destroy submits to no one.
Also look at Defender, what kind of powered armor leaves half his face and all of his neck exposed?
They also already brought Planetside2.com. However only logical before someone else does. My guess this game is very early in the development stage (The building of requirement documentation, hence the poll) and maybe some early designs. Looking forward to it though. However my faith in SoE is not to big and big change it will not be anything like PS1.
Well your list clearly shows that mmo sequals are a bad idea.
There is also no need to make a sequal of an mmo, you can keep improviing and adding to an mmo, that is the whole point.
So far I have not seen any successfull sequal to an existing mmo, that did not split up the playerbase and where the sum of the parts became bigger than the original.
If you make a sequal to an mmo, you are basically admitting failure with your original.
Clearly one of the few examples of how it should be done is EVE Online, with free expansions, a future vision ( even tho I don't always agree with where they are going ) and keep improving graphics, sound ( uhm yah nm that ) and gameplay.
Perhaps Guild Wars 2 may be different, but the 1st part can hardly be called an mmo anyway. And Jumpgate Evoluion will be very different from Jumpgate ( which has such low sub number it will be hard to do worse ).
So back to my point, mmo sequals are a bad idea and admitting you failed on your 1st attempt and did not try to fix it.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
Without the horror show that was AO's launch...<shudder>. I swear to this very day, when someone uses the phrase worst launch, AO's comes to mind automatically. I'm always amazed that they managed recover to the extent that they did from that.
[quote]Originally posted by CyberWiz
[b]Well your list clearly shows that mmo sequals are a bad idea.
There is also no need to make a sequal of an mmo, you can keep improviing and adding to an mmo, that is the whole point.[/quote]
Well I was mentioning Wakfu and Dofus earlier... they prove this point. Wakfu is at the moment a seni-failure. It's still in beta (after a year) so there's still hope... But the open beta, after almost two years of hyping it, has deceived a lot of people, because most announced features were not there. (Yes, the fact that is was a Beta has been made countless times... but nowadays, open betas are supposed to be complete games and only to track the last few bugs, not just a sneak peek of a game.) That gives credit to this column and this one too, I guess.
On the other hand Dofus 2.) is launching in December. Now it has been in development as long as Wakfu, but only a screenshot here and there has been released. It's "only" graphics and performance enhancement, not a full new game, but it does resolves the problem of aging graphics.
And "soon" there will be Roma Victor 2.
Which will actually be the game everyone wanted 3 years ago.
So much crap, so little quality.
It's not "because there are limited options in the genre." The reasons I laid out in the article pretty much speak for themselves. As for Vanguard. I suppose, sure, that's true. Though with EQII already well out the door by the time Vanguard was made, the expectations that were put on the game weren't that of a sequel. Claiming to be a spiritual successor to sell a few boxes isn't the same as being one.
Champions, on the other hand, has been held up by media and players as a follow-up to City of Heroes since it was first announced. Either way, you're free to have your opinion.
It was? Sorry, my bad.
Having played AO several times and I do like it. Just not the interface (wish they would modernize it). I was wondering if Fallen Earth is anything like it. I'm going to get FA in the next few days to check it out I think.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
Yes, this. If they were to take the spirit of EQ1 add modern day visuals and features, they would have a big winner.
And this would be a good thing.
Sequels only work if they build on what has come before and not change everything that make the original good.
""But Coyote, you could learn! You only prefer keyboard and mouse because that's all you've ever known!" You might say right before you hug a rainforest and walk in sandals to your drum circle where you're trying to raise group consciousness of ladybugs or whatever it is you dirty goddamn hippies do when you're not busy smoking pot and smelling bad."
Coyote's Howling: Death of the Computer
I just wonder when Blizzard will make Wow 2?
Only EA loves making sequls more than Blizzard. Diablo 2 & 3, Warcraft 2 & 3, Battlechess 2, Starcraft 2...
It would surprise me a lot if Blizzard wont make a Wow2, even though it wont be anything we see in the next few years, no need to compete with themselves.
well the key thing IF they want to make a sequel is to not alienate your current player base. if nothing else you will sustain current subscribers with a good familiar design, so if current players are tired of the old game will find the new one a nice change of pace.
Plus if they add a few new elements and make the game have more re-play value as well as fun activities within the game that give it more addictive playability the better.
That way they may gain new subscribers as well as appease your already fanbase. Consistency, value, quality and overall fun seem to be some key factors to paying close attention also when doing a sequel. And reading reviews about your own game can help a good bit, plus in-game questionaires of the original. that way they can really get a feel for what worked and what didn't and carry over all the favorite things of the original. Then add some more possibly innovative elements.
But hey, i'm just sayin...
Im shocked that you did not include Ultima Online and its endless expansions (or sequels by definition), for anyone who started out on UO i have found that most are still looking for a game that includes so many facets as this pioneer of the mmo era. But still a very good article.
Beware the "Shadow Rogues"!