This week, MMORPG.com's Jon Wood uses the list to count down five MMO sequels, a rare breed for the genre.

Sequels are a video game tradition. If you look at nearly any other video game genre, the shelves are littered with follow-up after follow-up after follow-up to popular (and more importantly high selling) titles. These sequels are generally pumped out every few years, keeping true to the original ideas and gameplay styles of the original. This is how games build franchises.

Yet, the MMO world seems to have been left behind in that area with only a few sequels having been created. This probably owes something to the continuing revenue stream that a popular MMO creates via subscription and probably also has to do with the way that MMOs continue to evolve via patches and updates throughout their lifetimes. Expansion packs also play a role here.

Read Five MMO Sequels

---

#5 Asheron's Call 2

For every Godfather 2, there's a Matrix Reloaded. For every Wrath of Khan, there's a Highlander II. In telling the story of sequels there are successes and then, for whatever reasons, there are failures.

Now, in reality, it isn't fair to compare Turbine's Asheron's Call follow-up to some of the worst sequels ever made but the truth of the matter is that, for whatever reason, Asheron's Call II holds the dubious distinction of being the highest profile MMO sequel to have ever been cancelled post-production.

AC 2 launched in 2002 and closed in 2005 after the game's Legions expansion failed to bolster its flagging subscriber numbers. Many critics of the game cite too much deviation from the original Asheron's Call as a reason for the game's cancellation.

---

Yet it became the basic template for most of the mmo's today. EQ1 + AC2 = Modern MMO's.

Good article.

AC2 definitely alienated much of the AC1 fans IMO.  I thought it was ok and would have thought better of it if it had not had the Asheron's Call name.   It was way too different from what I liked about AC1 and was probably too early for a sequel.

I still look forward to another AC game.  I like very much the loot and skill point system they have.

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.

Rumor's also afloat about 2 of the games on your list and them being expanded upon into a trilogy.  NCSoft has supposedly begun working on Lineage 3, while I can't find an accurate source that can confirm or deny this I think it is highly plausible.  Likewise, supposedly EverQuest 3 is in development behind closed doors somewhere, however I much doubt this one as it took them this long just to get GH in EQ2, which were advertised as coming soon on the original release box *cough*

I would have ranked the anticipation for GW2 up a little more, but then again with the inclusion of GWF and GWNF does it more make it the 4th game in the series then the second?

All in all it was a pretty good list.

---

Lineage 3 Blog http://lineage3.wordpress.com/

I'm a little bit dissapointed Ragnarok Online 2 wasn't mentioned, even though it never had a western release.

Sequels being canceled or not doing as good is really nothing new, we have seen it was Asherons Call and Everquest 2, which still did good but never reached the popularity of the original.

But Ragnarok Online was different. While Asherons Call had a respectable subscriber base, Ragnarok Online was one of the biggest mmorpgs in the world and was often seen as a popular alternative to NCsoft's Lineage series.

Ragnarok Online 2, on the other hand for some reason completely crashed and burned. It's now down to 2 open beta servers which appear to be nearly empty. I think Ragnarok Online 2 might just be the biggest drop in popularity in a sequel.

 You could have added Ultima Online 2 as the shortest lived MMO sequel in history :D

I wasn't going to mention it, but the author mentioned the GuildWars "sequels," so now I have to.

If we use the same logic applied to GuildWars, then City of Villains is the direct sequel to City of Heroes. The game was built to be stand-alone, you didn't need CoH to play CoV, if you subscribed to CoH you still had to buy CoV, they didn't come in a single box. And it continued the "City of" franchise. It was the direct sequel to City of Heroes.

I agree fully that Champions online is a spiritual sequel to City of Heroes, after all CoH was originally based loosely on the Champions pen-and-paper RPG. Also, a lot of stuff in CO was first proposed for CoH. For example, in early beta the powers for CoH worked how they work in CO now, and the Nemesis system was originally proposed for CoH. But, City of Villains beat CO to the CoH sequel punch.

 I was getting REALLY worried when I got to Lineage II as number 2, and then saw FFXIV underneath it, that you wouldn't be including EQ2 xD Eq2 had a rocky start IMO, but it became a really great game. I'm excited about FFXIV as well :) and GW2.

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.

The article does little more than describing minor facts of sequel games. If you're going for lists of games around some topic, then I would suggest looking at the »20 Game Design Essentials« series over at Gamasutra (e.g. Game Design Essentials: 20 RPGs) for some inspiration.

Another take would be like «5 ways to do mounts» «10 lessons learned from PVP systems» and things like that, that's more a documenting style with some opinions on what works better and what lesser. Could be interesting for people as well, who might hear of games they haven't heard of before or learn how other games tackle common problems. If you add some opinions, then there is a base for discussion, too.

Generally, getting away some more from blog posts would be nice. For some nice ideas, also see the awesome retrospective series (Zelda Retrospective or Final Fantasy Retrospective). Just trying to be constructive here :)

Originally posted by Xondar123

I wasn't going to mention it, but the author mentioned the GuildWars "sequels," so now I have to.

 

If we use the same logic applied to GuildWars, then City of Villains is the direct sequel to City of Heroes. The game was built to be stand-alone, you didn't need CoH to play CoV, if you subscribed to CoH you still had to buy CoV, they didn't come in a single box. And it continued the "City of" franchise. It was the direct sequel to City of Heroes.

 

I agree fully that Champions online is a spiritual sequel to City of Heroes, after all CoH was originally based loosely on the Champions pen-and-paper RPG. Also, a lot of stuff in CO was first proposed for CoH. For example, in early beta the powers for CoH worked how they work in CO now, and the Nemesis system was originally proposed for CoH. But, City of Villains beat CO to the CoH sequel punch.

I agree with the first part of this post completly.  I do not agree with Champions being a "spiritual sequel"  to anything.  If you use that method of classification, then there are multiple "spiritual sequel"s out there.  To put a game into that category just because it's genre has limited examples makes no sense. 

Originally posted by Lex_Taliones

Originally posted by Xondar123

I wasn't going to mention it, but the author mentioned the GuildWars "sequels," so now I have to.

 

If we use the same logic applied to GuildWars, then City of Villains is the direct sequel to City of Heroes. The game was built to be stand-alone, you didn't need CoH to play CoV, if you subscribed to CoH you still had to buy CoV, they didn't come in a single box. And it continued the "City of" franchise. It was the direct sequel to City of Heroes.

 

I agree fully that Champions online is a spiritual sequel to City of Heroes, after all CoH was originally based loosely on the Champions pen-and-paper RPG. Also, a lot of stuff in CO was first proposed for CoH. For example, in early beta the powers for CoH worked how they work in CO now, and the Nemesis system was originally proposed for CoH. But, City of Villains beat CO to the CoH sequel punch.

 

I agree with the first part of this post completly.  I do not agree with Champions being a "spiritual sequel"  to anything.  If you use that method of classification, then there are multiple "spiritual sequel"s out there.  To put a game into that category just because it's genre has limited examples makes no sense. 

The game wasn't put there "simply because it's genre has limited examples" I'd think the biggest reason it is there which you totally ignored in your response is because the maker of COH is the maker of CO and as stated by the guy you even quoted it is really a spiritual successor if for no other reason than the fact that most of what is in CO are really every idea they had for COH but never implimented.

You nailed it about AC2.   What we wanted what a sequel of AC 1 not an entirely different game.   If AC2 would have been based on the AC 1 game mechanic it would still be running today. 

Originally posted by TheMaelstrom

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.

Your definitely not alone

Originally posted by jaxsundane

Originally posted by Lex_Taliones

Originally posted by Xondar123

I wasn't going to mention it, but the author mentioned the GuildWars "sequels," so now I have to.

 

If we use the same logic applied to GuildWars, then City of Villains is the direct sequel to City of Heroes. The game was built to be stand-alone, you didn't need CoH to play CoV, if you subscribed to CoH you still had to buy CoV, they didn't come in a single box. And it continued the "City of" franchise. It was the direct sequel to City of Heroes.

 

I agree fully that Champions online is a spiritual sequel to City of Heroes, after all CoH was originally based loosely on the Champions pen-and-paper RPG. Also, a lot of stuff in CO was first proposed for CoH. For example, in early beta the powers for CoH worked how they work in CO now, and the Nemesis system was originally proposed for CoH. But, City of Villains beat CO to the CoH sequel punch.

 

I agree with the first part of this post completly.  I do not agree with Champions being a "spiritual sequel"  to anything.  If you use that method of classification, then there are multiple "spiritual sequel"s out there.  To put a game into that category just because it's genre has limited examples makes no sense. 

 

The game wasn't put there "simply because it's genre has limited examples" I'd think the biggest reason it is there which you totally ignored in your response is because the maker of COH is the maker of CO and as stated by the guy you even quoted it is really a spiritual successor if for no other reason than the fact that most of what is in CO are really every idea they had for COH but never implimented.

Except Cryptic wasn't the only company involved in CoX. NCSoft is also the maker of CoX and when Cryptic left, the game it help make was noticeable improved. And from what I hear so far, the problems with CO are the same type of problems CoX had when Cryptic was involved. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a "spiritual sucessor".

I would say Vanguard was the "Spiritual" successor to Everquest.

Either way, what's the point of the list?

Originally posted by Aguitha

You nailed it about AC2.   What we wanted what a sequel of AC 1 not an entirely different game.   If AC2 would have been based on the AC 1 game mechanic it would still be running today. 

Yeah we wanted AC1 with better graphics...instead we got crap, pretty crap, but crap.

Originally posted by Aguitha

You nailed it about AC2.   What we wanted what a sequel of AC 1 not an entirely different game.   If AC2 would have been based on the AC 1 game mechanic it would still be running today. 

Very true. But what finally ended up killing it was the *endless* stream of "issues" and Turbine and Microsoft pointing fingers at each other.  Hell, it got so bad at some points if you will remember, that even the basic chat system was broken.  Not to mention the multiple times they broke the combat system, server sync and lord knows what else.  Add all of that together and throw in Turbine closing down the game, right after selling us the expansion... And you have why many of us do not trust Turbine any more.

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.

i thought this was gonna be a sequels we should have and was gonna rage so hard over it.  Good article but i am a firm believer that MMO's should only ever have a sequal if the original is over 5 years old.